My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01909
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1900-1999
>
pf_01909
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2024 8:44:41 AM
Creation date
2/21/2024 8:38:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1909
Planning Files - Type
Special Use Permit
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
187
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 <br />Page# 3 <br />Wednesday, December 71 1988 <br />ply <br />types of trees and pointed out that it was their intent <br />nto tcooplepely <br />a variety of trees but not to screen the dev p <br />from adjacent residential uses. <br />Johnson asked what size the trees wo l would be accordingbe when they eto <br />planted. Erickson answered that the size <br />Citystandards. Dahlgren pointed out that theCity <br />does <br />2 not have <br />' _- <br />inch <br />iements but generally looked <br />specific size requr <br />caliper deciduous trees and 4-6 foot carniferous trees. <br />Johnson expressed concern that the developer has not provided <br />Joh DeBenedet pointed <br />enough information on signage and landscaping. Commission and <br />out that this is the final review aby Planning the information. Dahlgren <br />that -it is important to get all <br />testified that it is 1. men staffs position that a developer ha"' <br />the right to install signage if it is not shown in the PUD, as <br />long as they meet the sign ordinance requirements. <br />Seigle stated that their intent is to approas or a e in be class low <br />way. Signs would be located on the building <br />ground signs in character with the building. <br />are footage of signage <br />DeBenedet inquired what the maximum Would install whatever the <br />might be. Seigle responded that they feet of <br />ordinance would allow. Dahlgren stated that 70 sq. <br />si na a would be allowed along Lexington and 100 sq. feet along <br />g g <br />Highway 36. <br />Moeller stated that signage would not be objectionable on the <br />building. <br />ncern that if the landscaping wasn't done all <br />Joh <br />nson stated a co <br />at once, that the landscaping would would belarger appear because <br />the landscaping installed initially <br />mature. Erickson replied that they <br />did not want to have to <br />econd remove landscaping in 2-3 years when the a small areaswould <br />e is <br />rem pointed out that only <br />constructed. Erickson p not be landscaped initially and that all the perimeter planting <br />would be done in the first phase. <br />Johnson asked what happens to the existing landscaping on the <br />site. Erickson replied that it would be taken down because of <br />soil correction work. <br />Berry asked how many of the students who live in the town houses <br />would have cars. Kinzer testified that approximately 50% of <br />those students have cars and that they would be separated so that <br />they weren't all in one building. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.