Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Wednesday, January 12, 1994 <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />that the open space is less. By comparison, Mr. Falk stated that the Concordia project <br />is approximately 8 units per acre and the Caliber Ridge project on Rice and Highway <br />36 is 11 units per acre. Falk said the project provides housing for all ages and all life <br />styles. The staff recommended approval of the project because it provides <br />opportunities for alternate housing. It is close to shopping and transportation corridors. <br />In addition, all design standards and parking requirements are met and the engineering <br />issues have been resolved. <br /> <br />Chairman Keith Wietecki asked for clarification regarding the width of the Fairview <br />Avenue right -of-way and whether expansion would be necessary on the site and <br />whether there would be room for additional landscaping. City Planner Falk responded <br />that the Fairview Avenue right-of-way is wide enough to accommodate an additional <br />lane expansion as well as the proposed landscaping. Member Rengel asked for <br />clarification regarding sidewalks and zoning on the site. He also asked for clarification <br />regarding the grade differences between the east side of the project and the west side <br />of the project and the west side of the project. Falk responded the difference is <br />approximately ten feet. Rengel asked for clarification regarding retaining walls and <br />maintenance of the steep slopes. <br /> <br />Member Thomas asked for clarification regarding the parking requirements on the site. <br />The staff responded that the project does meet the parking requirements especially by <br />using cross-parking easement with the church. A general discussion ensued regarding <br />parking requirements and density requirements throughout the community. <br /> <br />Members Harms and Thomas asked for further clarification regarding the shared <br />parking outside of the planned unit development area and the controls over such <br />permanent parking. City Planner Falk explained that controls would be part of the <br />planned unit development agreement as well as the subdivision development <br />agreement. He stated that the real unknown at this time is the future growth of the <br />church and the needs for additional parking. <br /> <br />Member Sandstrom asked for clarification regarding the need for the future parking lot <br />designated on the plan for the church, north of the church buildings. Falk explained <br />there is no plans for constructing that parking lot at the current time. Member Wall <br />asked for clarification regarding the amount of water running from north to south and <br />