My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2002_0506_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2002
>
2002_0506_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 4:03:59 PM
Creation date
10/25/2010 1:47:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
151
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
from Lexington Avenue. The "L" shape does not work well except at the Lexington <br />setback. <br />Member Cunningham asked if more parking is available in April 15�' plan? (Yes, 2 to 3 <br />spaces). <br />Joan Bierscheid, 1065 Harriet Lane, explained that residents were accepting of the "L" <br />shaped office building placement along Lexington Avenue. <br />Marlene Struve, 1056 Harriet Lane, asked if the design could be two stories with a <br />basement. Developers have said the land is contaminated and no below grade projects <br />can be built. Neighbors were happy with original land use concept and do not understand <br />why the site plan changed. Even a one story (with basement) office building would be <br />better. What is the difference between staff proposal and current proposal? Thomas <br />Paschke explained the differences between the March 4�' and the April 1 5�' plans. <br />Nancy Hendrickson, 1020 W. Roselawn, asked if inedical office would generate more <br />traffic study. Deb Bloom reviewed traffic studies done by Glen VanWarner of SEH. The <br />main traffic addition was on Lexington Avenue. Ms. Hendrickson said she was <br />concerned about the height and contamination. <br />Thomas Paschke explained the federal requirements for funding and relation to <br />contamination. <br />Dan Billmark explained that HUD is restrictive regarding where HUD Section 8 <br />financing and housing are placed on a site. HUD will not allow a basement dwelling unit. <br />The cost of soil removal and replacement is prohibitive. <br />Brent Thompson stated that a 2-'/z story building would require a significant cost in <br />removal of soil because of excavation. <br />Member Cunningham asked if a three-story building was more efficient. Mr. Thompson <br />said three-story rectangle building is much more efficient and his choice of development. <br />Member Wilke asked for clarification of excavation depth (four feet). <br />Brent Thompson explained grading and excavation process. <br />Marlene Struve commented that the Rose Villa Town Home Association supported the <br />staff recommendation of setting the apartment back, but retaining the "L" shape building. <br />Nancy Hendrickson, 1020 W. Roselawn, prefers the office-building setback from <br />Lexington. She liked the apartment layout and asked for details of the shared parking. <br />Thomas Paschke explained the shared parking concepts. Having the office-building <br />setback would reduce headlight glare in Roselawn back yards. <br />Carol Wagner welcomed the second (April 15�') plan. <br />Dick Houk, 1133 Roselawn, expressed concern with reduction of residential theme from <br />the office building. At Highway 36 and Le�ngton, the office condo does fit in with <br />residences. The building appears too big for the site. The apartment cannot be placed in <br />the southeast corner because of sewer lines. The whole project is too large by <br />comparison to the original convenience gas store. Three stories are too much for this site. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.