My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_880406
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
pm_880406
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:53 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
4/6/1988
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.
/
16
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 <br /> <br />page# 7 <br /> <br />Wednesday, April 6, 1988 <br /> <br />in that the building height would be below the height of the <br />trees. Johnson commented that in her opinion the building <br />appeared to be taller than the trees. Moeller indicated that the <br />mature trees were 40 - 50 feet high, and that the building was <br />not too far out of scale with a standard two story building, <br />which would be below the height of the trees. He further pointed <br />out that the building was in sections, which further breaks up <br />the mass of the building. <br /> <br />Berry asked for information concerning the impact of the sanitary <br />sewer change on the existing sanitary sewer problems in the area. <br />Honchell pointed out that there have been problems due to the <br />unstable ground which the sanitary sewer main is constructed on <br />along the lake and in the swamp. He indicated that the line <br />needs to be replaced, but that it is under the control of the <br />Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. He expressed the opinion <br />that the development would not impact the problems in the area <br />significantly. <br /> <br />Berry questioned the length of the building and pointed out her <br />concerns regarding parking based on the parking problems which <br />have been present at the Lake Ridge Nursing Home across the <br />street. Webb responded that he felt there was sufficient parking <br />being provided based on the fact that the only parking to be used <br />would be for visitors and seven staff members. Schuster added <br />that there has been a parking problem at Lake Ridge because of <br />the large number of staff persons needed at that particular <br />facility who take up all of the on-site parking. He felt that <br />this proposal is much different from that one and that the <br />parking would be sufficient. <br /> <br />Goedeke asked why underground parking was not being required as <br />in typical mUlti-family projects. Dahlgren pointed out that <br />underground parking is not required because parking stalls are <br />provided for visitors and staff use only because residents of <br />elderly housing such as this do not, in many cases, drive cars. <br />Dahlgren pointed out that the depth of the structure was <br />approximately 100 feet, while the length is approximately 280 <br />feet. <br /> <br />Stokes inquired about the soil conditions on the site. <br />responded that they had taken soil borings at the <br />location, and that the soils were suitable. <br /> <br />Ellness <br />building <br /> <br />Stokes inquired about the potential tax benefit of the project. <br />Webb responded that their preliminary studies have indicated that <br />they would generate in excess of $100,000.00 in taxes with their <br />proposal. <br /> <br />DeBenedet inquired about the total height of the building, and <br />why a portion of their site drained to the NE, which is contrary <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.