My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_851002
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1985
>
pm_851002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:38 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/2/1985
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
<br />Roseville Planning Commission Minutes <br />October 2, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />Mrs. Bundy (address unknown) stated she wanted her fence <br />preserved. Resident asked what the setback requirements were and <br />whether easement can be considered part of the setback. Mr. Davis <br />replied that the setback is seventy feet, and the easement <br />can be considered part of the setback. <br /> <br />Demos discussed problems that flat roofed buildings have caused <br />for the City of Roseville. <br /> <br />Resident (didn't give name) asked for an explanation of the <br />grades on the site. Thompson explained that the existing <br />building is two and one-half stories because half of the first <br />floor is underground in what used to be called a "garden" apartment. <br />Demos pointed out that under R 3A zoning, garden level apartments <br />were permitted, which no longer is allowed. <br /> <br />Mr. Drown stated the setbacks were as follows: <br /> <br />1. Front and rear yard 3/4 of height. <br /> <br />2. Side yard 1/2 of height. <br /> <br />Resident asked where parking would be for residents for Phase I <br />of the building. Goldstein replied the garage wouldn't be moved <br />until after Phase I is complete. <br /> <br />Neilson asked why the two other variances that were in the notice <br />were released. Oberlander replied that the building plans had <br />changed to the point that two of the four variances weren't <br />needed. <br /> <br />Neilson asked how old Ridgepoint was. Oberlander replied that <br />it's currently under construction. <br /> <br />Neilson also asked whether the building met the square footage <br />requirements. Drown replied the development meets all of them. <br /> <br />Matson asked why they needed to go four and one-half feet higher <br />with the berm, and is that then added on to the total building <br />height. Thompson replied that they would prefer to keep the berm <br />over the garage. Wiski replied that the height footage commences <br />at the grade line, not with the berm. <br /> <br />Resident asked where the roof drains would go. Thompson replied <br />they would utilize the drains so all the water was contained <br />within the site. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.