My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01704
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1700-1799
>
pf_01704
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2016 2:12:12 PM
Creation date
1/27/2016 2:23:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1704
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
2545 Hamline Ave N
Project Name
Rosepointe
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
146
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
i <br />�, r <br />December 18, 1987 <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />SUBJECT: <br />Jim Andre <br />Charlie Honchell and Craig Waldron <br />ROSEPOINTE BRSCK WALL <br />�he Rosepointe project was originally approved April 17, 1986, <br />with a specif ic condi�ion tha� the prtached.)aiTheeWallSdepicted <br />of J�rick. (The appro�aal letter asConcept that had not been <br />on the origirial plan was simply ioval of th� final plans was <br />�ormally developed, thus staff app' <br />o�1e of the conditions. <br />7'he d�velaper and a�chitect� SY�S�qarding �he fina1tPlans�Y The <br />�21a,r,ner and Bui1�3ing Inspe�to.. r � <br />pians depicted a major wall across ofe���orat�vetblock�similart� <br />m�ants, whi.ch was to be constructed �n� havinq brick <br />t:o the material for th�e base of the building, <br />accents. The City Planner and the�he�wallgwa�sn ttbeing cont <br />time did not notice the Fact that <br />structed of brick. <br />The wall, which is virtually compl�febrickateStaffrand�thenCity� <br />it is not technically constructed o <br />Planner met with the developer and�eedeis�notcbrickarcl�tist��e� <br />discuss the fact that the wall in <br />d�velQper's position that the wall �peforeEtdc�es not�requi�e�e <br />Council�s special conditian and, th <br />additional modification. Tlze archit�o� ���enteeach��artro�lthe <br />poi.nts out t:�at he was very carEfu p roval to proceed with <br />dev�lapment to th� City, and thus had aP�ians reflected the use <br />the wal�. as p�'nposed .in the plans. The P <br />of concrete block. <br />A ine�:ting was scheduled with the dS�decided that the�developere <br />archit�c�• Nt rhis mecting, it wa <br />should formulate � final pl�n far t��e review�clCbY1tY►euCity�Counci�l <br />landscaping. This plan would then b <br />to ascertain whether it does �� b°icknot m�et tlle City intent <br />tlzat the wall b� constructed o <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.