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
� <br />� <br />, <br />Department <br />� <br />R�QU�ST FOR COUNCIL ACTIOy <br />Approval: P�ianager Reviewed: <br />Iten Description: <br />Rosepointe �vall <br />-�J ' w`'.�- <br />_-------- <br />DATE: 3-14-88 <br />ITEP� �IO.: <br />Agenda Section: <br />Requests and Recomme;iclations <br />Attached is a memo discussi.ng the history of the Rosepointe brick <br />wall, the original city council approval let�er, and the first <br />proposal by the architecta to address the fac�� that th� wall is not <br />brick. E�sentially► th� wall depicted on the original plan �aas a <br />concepr that had not been L-ormally developed, thus, the coun�il <br />stated that on� of the requirements would be that th� landsca�ed wall <br />be construct�d of prick. The plans, that were submitted to the city, <br />depictecl a�;�ajor wa11 a�cross the front of the Forum apart�nen�s, which <br />wa� to be constructed of decorative blocic. Th� city �lar�ner and �he <br />building inspector at th�t tine, did not nocice the fact that che <br />wall was not �2inq co��structed �f bri�k. The ac3jac�nt neighDor, to <br />the norch, is concern�d that the wall is too high, and thus blocks <br />off her point oi viacv through the dining ro�m o�inc]ow. <br />IC ap�eared that �he council had �h� �ollowing options rel.��ing this <br />situation. <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />��iake an int�rpretation that th� respective condirion hu::� been <br />properly :net. <br />Re:�u�s�. a varianc� to th� sp�cial condition. <br />Reguire ori�k facing on ti�e wail. <br />Re:�u i r � that the ��al l b� r emoved . �. <br />At ch� January 15 city council work session duritig whicl, t:�is issue <br />was discussed, che council suggested that the developer :�e�;c a <br />compromi�e a�ich the a�jac�nt neigizbor anc� subse�uently reLurn '_� the <br />city c�ith the pot�ntial com��romise. Additional m�ecings have <br />o:,curr�cl betr,een th� staff, dev�lo�er, and the adja�ent n�:igi�bor chat <br />is conceri�ed about tne n�ight oc c��e wal.� . A recent meetinc� with th� <br />neighbor has r�su.lted in �� coa�npromi�e �lan. E�sentially, the <br />developer would taper the wall :�o��an to a��ro::ima��ly 4 tt. in height, <br />ancl r�mov� the far colunn to the north. Thi� compromise ti�ould <br />�rovide some visi�ility �owara fla,nline For the impacted n�ighpor. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.