My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01869
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1800-1899
>
pf_01869
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2024 10:13:23 AM
Creation date
2/21/2024 10:11:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1869
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.
/
80
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
requesting that the architect bring -a sample of this <br />material so as to assure all concerned <br />ature <br />roduct. There are, of course, <br />and appearance of the p <br />precast panels being done by companies like Fabcon, but <br />also a wide variety of prefinished and patterned concrete <br />block, some of which are attractive and some of which are <br />not <br />Part of the application for a Special Use Permit is for a <br />Planned Unit Development, since there are five principle <br />structures'on the site. Due to the change in grade on the <br />site, the center structure (Storage Building C) is a two <br />story building, with access at two levels, one from the <br />north and one from the south. This increases the <br />efficiency of the use of tha and and produces a floor <br />area ratio of .37. The floor, area ratio allowed in this <br />district is .34. The slight increase in floor area ratio, <br />however, can be approved as apart of the Planned Unit <br />Development. Since the mini -storage is a very low <br />intensity use, it would appear that the slight increase in <br />problem. <br />emp <br />floor area ratio is not a significant <br />he <br />development as a whole meets or exceeds ordinance <br />requirements in terms of setbacks, etc. <br />The front of the site as proposed will have a substantial <br />ponding area on what appears to be on the railroad <br />right-of-way. At this location, the right-of-way is 25 <br />feet less than what is ordinarily the case. Typically the <br />right-of-way is 100 feet in width with the track down the <br />aea for <br />center. The rights to the use of this ostdofgtrappears <br />drainage should be ascertained, since m <br />to be on what remains of the railroad right-of-way.. <br />Though the drawings do not indicate it, we would assume <br />that all of the driveways will be asphalt. The curbs are <br />indicated to be concrete as required. <br />7. it would appear that the development proposal is a <br />reasonable one. Any action for consideration of the <br />Special Use Permit requested for the PUD, the car wash, <br />and mini -storage should be subject to consideration of the <br />materials use question and final engineering and <br />landscaping details review by the staff. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.