My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01781
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1700-1799
>
pf_01781
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2024 2:37:12 PM
Creation date
2/15/2024 2:33:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1781
Planning Files - Type
Special Use Permit
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PLANNING REPORT <br />DATE: <br />CASE NUMBER: <br />APPLICANT: <br />LOCATION: <br />ACTION REQUESTED: <br />PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: <br />• <br />7 October 1987 <br />1781 <br />Motel 6 <br />Northeast Quadrant of <br />Highway 36 and 35W (see <br />sketch) <br />Special Use Permit for Site <br />Plan Approval in B1-B <br />District <br />1. This property is a 1.8 acre site initially developed as a Victoria Station <br />restaurant about ten years ago. That restaurant chain has run into <br />difficulties across the country resulting in the closing of the Roseville <br />restaurant about two years ago. <br />2. The Motel 6 people propose to purchase the site and construct a new <br />motel consisting of 112 rooms with 115 parking spaces. The Ordinance <br />requires 1 parking space per unit. <br />3. Attached to this report is a copy of the statement from the Motel 6 <br />people describing their company and their operations. Also attached is <br />a copy of the site plan indicating the landscaping and a color <br />perspective of the proposed building. <br />4. The Staff has discussed this development project with the applicants and <br />their representatives on several occasions. The initial proposal was to <br />build a stucco building. We suggested that brick would be a more <br />appropriate material in Roseville, which they have agreed to do. <br />5. The basic site plan is similar to that which was developed for the <br />restaurant in the sense that there is a single entrance with the pa1`'king <br />function occurring around the perimeter of the site with the <br />development in the middle. They propose a structure consisting of two <br />buildings and an outdoor pool. <br />6. A sidewalk is not shown on the site plan. In this case, a cash deposit <br />to be utilized in conjunction with the rebuilding of this portion of the <br />service road might be appropriate. This should be discussed with the <br />applicant at the Planning Commission and Council hearings. <br />7. Dave Janisch notes that the engineering drawings do not note the <br />removal of the existing water service and, in one case, they showed <br />trees to be located on the top of the sanitary sewer service. These <br />adjustments can be accomplished as a part of final engineering review <br />and approval. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.