My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01619
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1600-1699
>
pf_01619
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/20/2024 9:36:09 AM
Creation date
2/20/2024 9:34:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1619
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.
/
56
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
SOLAR WASH, 1619-85 <br />Page 2 <br />site. The driveway on the west side of the property was <br />intended to be for egress to Larpenteur Avenue. Mr. Drown <br />has pointed out, however, that traffic leaving the car wash <br />site is directed by the curb to the left hand side of the <br />driveway. This could create some conflict with cars <br />entering the site to the west. Mr. Drown has suggested that <br />the traffic pattern might be reversed, using the easterly <br />driveway for egress to Larpenteur Avenue. The Planning <br />Commission and Council may wish to question the applicants <br />regarding this proposal. <br />6. We see no problems with respect to the combination of the <br />car wash use and that of an office building above. <br />Certainly, it is a way of producing a more handsome and <br />meaningful structure, with a more efficient use of the land <br />and the site location. <br />7. The structure, you will notice, is to be built of brick and <br />stained cedar, which we feel will be an attractive addition <br />to this portion of the City. Roseville does not have a self <br />service car wash, which is favored by many because of the <br />reduced cost and by those who prefer not to subject their <br />car finish to automated car wash equipment. The plans do <br />not indicate the construction of a side walk along <br />Larpenteur Avenue, which is required by ordinance, as you <br />know. <br />8. Our principle concern with respect to the development of the <br />site as proposed and the concern of the staff engineers, is <br />for the adequate design of the retaining wall and the <br />footings for the proposed structure. The reason the Arthur <br />Treacher's Fish & Chips store was demolished was that <br />adequate foundations had not been prepared for the <br />structure. The Planning Commission and Council may wish to <br />consider a condition to any approval for staff approval for <br />the retaining wall (to be designed by a registered <br />professional engineer), construction of the sidewalk, and <br />staff approval of final landscape plans. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.