My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_861001
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1986
>
pm_861001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:46 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/1/1986
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.
/
13
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 />October 1, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Wi ski stated as part of the target area and gateway into <br />City's major tax increment area, how are they developing <br />hotel to properly reflect the City's priorities in the <br />Peterson replied that extensive landscaping was planned on <br />particular site. <br /> <br />the <br />this <br />area. <br />this <br /> <br />Moeller asked how the slope in the rear was going to be <br />stabilized. Peterson replied that sod would be used. <br /> <br />Johnson asked Mr. Dahlgren how long the tanks would exist in the <br />rear of the property. Mr. Dahlgren replied that Amoco eventually <br />will be developing something new in the area. He reemphasized <br />that this is a gateway into the City's major target area, and that <br />it is critical that the developments be of very high quality. <br /> <br />Johnson asked whether the sidewalks should be moved further south. <br />Janisch replied that it would not be appropriate in that the major <br />sidewalks would be on the other side of the street. <br /> <br />Moeller asked where the trash storage was going to occur. <br />Peterson replied on the south end, in a fenced area. <br /> <br />Gary Hunslet, an architect also with the project, stated why he <br />thought the stucco would be the proper exterior. He also discused <br />the extensive landscaping on the site. <br /> <br />Maschka asked as to whether they were saying that if stucco were <br />not used, that the proposal would no longer be economically <br />feasible. Hunslet replied that stucco would create an excellent <br />attractive appearance. <br /> <br />Berry asked what size were the proposed trees. Hunslet replied <br />that the larger trees would be planted in the more prominent <br />areas, and smaller trees would be planted in areas less visible. <br />He stated he would be willing to work with staff on developing the <br />specifics of the landscape plan. <br /> <br />Wiski asked their definition of mature trees. Hunslet replied 1.5 <br />to 2 inch trees are considered mature, which are about twenty feet <br />high in the beginning. <br /> <br />Berry stated in her opinion, stucco would deteriorate by the time <br />the trees are mature. <br /> <br />Wi ski asked if the site would be irrigated. Peterson replied no. <br /> <br />Johnson asked if the applicant would be willing to change to brick <br />in place of where the stucco was going to be utilized. Hunslet <br />replied no. Johnson replied, in her opinion, the upkeep of stucco <br />was extremely difficult. Peterson asked Johnson on what her <br />information was based. Johnson replied it was based on years of <br />experience in a construction family. Wiski stated that the City <br />has had significant problems with stucco over the years. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.