My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_880203
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
pm_880203
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:52 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/3/1988
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.
/
24
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 />15 <br /> <br />it and determined if it didn't work. Dunwell responded yes. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked city staff's opinion of the strength of the lot. <br />Janisch responded that the design would be stronger than many <br />city streets, and the strength would be adequate. Janisch <br />indicated that it would be better to store the water off the lot <br />for maintenance reasons. DeBenedet inquired about whether or not <br />the islands would compromise the integrity of the mat. Janisch <br />responded that islands would not create a problem, and that their <br />weight would not have an effect on the strength of the lot. <br />Dunwell responded that the problem would be water going through <br />the islands and roots developing under the mat from landscaping, <br />which would compromise the strength of the parking lot. <br />DeBenedet asked if they had obtained such an opinion from a soils <br />engineer. Dunwell responded that yes they had, and also from two <br />paving contractors, which recommended that the mat have no <br />openings. <br /> <br />DeBenedet inquired if they were providing enough handicapped <br />spaces to meet codes. Dunwell indicated that there would be 250 <br />spaces in the front, which would technically require 5 <br />handicapped stalls. Berry responded that there are more in the <br />back. DeBenedet indicated that he was not aware of the spaces in <br />the back, and that this may not meet the code. Dunwell responded <br />that they had excess total handicapped stalls, but technically <br />maybe under in the front. DeBenedet responded that he believed <br />that there was a higher need in this situation because of the <br />population using it, and that more than 4 handicapped spaces <br />would be needed. <br /> <br />Maschka indicated that he was concerned about the drainage, and <br />could see problems with standing water in the parking lot. <br />Janisch responded that during a hundred year storm, there might <br />be four to five inches standing in the parking lot for a short <br />period of time, and with a ten year storm, 1 to 11/12 inches of <br />water standing in the parking lot for a short period of time. <br />Janisch recommended that there be ponding off of the parking <br />area. <br /> <br />Maschka inquired if this would be a problem to the applicant. <br />Dunwell responded that the cost could be a problem, because grant <br />funds are limited. <br /> <br />DeBenedet indicated that the arguments don't square, that they <br />are not providing landscaping in the lot, and at the same time, <br />cracks will develop anyway, and they will have ended up having <br />the same problem as if landscaping were provided. Dunwell <br />responded that every lot will develop cracks, but that this can <br />be controlled. Dunwell indicated that he did not want to <br />intentionally designed the lot with a problem, and the city <br />shouldn't require that he design a problem. Dunwell indicated <br />that there was sufficient berming and landscaping on the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.