My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01912
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1900-1999
>
pf_01912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/20/2024 4:49:18 PM
Creation date
2/20/2024 4:37:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1912
Planning Files - Type
Zoning Text Amendment
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
154
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
ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Page#12 <br />Wednesday, January 4, 1989 <br />design. Dahlberg replied that the any problems will be <br />addressed. <br />Stokes stated that the concept was excellent but there are bugs <br />that need to be worked out including the lack of sidewalks and <br />addressing fire marshal concerns. <br />Keel pointed out that the sidewalk would be required by <br />ordinance. <br />Goedeke stated that section drawings should be provided which <br />show how the roof top units will be screened. Moeller added that <br />the sections should be at locations where parapet height or roof <br />height changes. <br />DeBenedet asked which areas of the exterior would not be brick. <br />Dahlberg highlighted the exterior building materials. <br />Brown summarized the reasons for the design of the concrete <br />arches and stated that dumpsters could be in the building for the <br />small tenants but might be a problem for the larger tenants. <br />DeBenedet asked where enclosures for the major tenants would be. <br />Brown replied that they would be in the service court areas and <br />that they will develop more details on that. <br />Berry stated that based on state statutes that developers should <br />make provisions for source separation of trash. <br />Moeller stated that compactors should be enclosed also. <br />Johnson summarized the issues that needed to be addressed <br />including the lack of sidewalks, the additional fire marshal <br />review, the provision of complete drainage plans, details and <br />section drawings of roof top screening, mechanical units, colors <br />of brick and columns, design of signage, the need to reconsider <br />the design of the area around the southeast entrance rand the <br />provision of sediment control. <br />Brown questioned the need to redesign the southeast entrance when <br />they have been advised by the traffic consultant that the design <br />is sufficient. <br />Dahlgren responded that there are two aspects to review of the <br />area including function and appearance. Dahlgren said that while <br />the entrance may work functionally, it would be perceived as <br />tight and not providing good vision of the center. Dahlgren <br />pointed out the importance of proper design because it would be a <br />principle entrance to the site. Dahlgren added that it appeared <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.