My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_851106
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1985
>
pm_851106
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:38 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/6/1985
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 />Roseville Planning Commission Minutes <br />Wednesday, November 6, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Discussion <br />Mueller asked whether indeed the whole building was going to painted, <br />and what color. Hess replied, yes, the whole building is being <br />painted, and will eventually be white. Matson asked if he was using <br />the white for business purposes, based on identification of the <br />building over time. Hess replied that he was. <br /> <br />Wiski stated that the parking is appropriate presently because the <br />family basically walks to the office, but in the future will adequate <br />parking be provided if needed. Hess replied, yes, he would agree to <br />make arrangements in the future if so desired. <br /> <br />Wiski asked what will happen at the various entrances to the parcel. <br />Hess proceeded to point on the site plan how the various entrances <br />would operate. Wiski asked why, in the rear of the building can't <br />trucks back into the lot versus backing in from the street. Hess <br />replied, no, that a significant number of trees would have to be <br />removed to accomplish this task. Matson asked how are the trucks <br />handled now. Hess replied they have to back in from the street. <br /> <br />Mueller asked why a forklift needs to be moved in and out of the <br />structure. Hess replied it was for repair purposes. <br /> <br />Demos asked where exactly the new addition was, with respect to the <br />site plan. Hess proceeded to outline it on his submitted site plan. <br /> <br />Wiski asked whether sidewalks would be needed in the area. Hess <br />replied that the new building would have a value of $125,000, and the <br />current building is valued at $441,000. Thus, the sidewalk would not <br />be required, because the value of the new structure does not exceed <br />one-half the value of the existing structure. <br /> <br />Dressler asked why Hess was using concrete block, and whether the sign <br />on the building was still the original. Hess replied that he wants to <br />use concrete block to facilitate a match with the old building, and <br />that the sign still is the original sign. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br />Matson moved, seconded by DeBenedet, that the issue be removed from <br />the table. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: Berry, Johnson, Dressler, Matson, Mueller, DeBenedet, <br />and Wiski. <br />Nays: None. <br /> <br />Thus, the former motion to deny was now before the members. <br /> <br />Discussion <br />Matson stated that he didn't want this project denied and, after <br />visiting the site, he thought the addition would fit in well in the <br />area, and there would be no need to sod the front part of the building <br />at the Rice and McCarron intersection. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.