My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_870701
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1987
>
pm_870701
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:49 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
7/1/1987
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.
/
10
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 />July 1, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />Johnson asked whether there was a berm at the southwest corner, <br />and what type of signage was proposed. Gerster reiterated that <br />the parking would probably be four feet below level, with shrubs, <br />and that Slumber land was proposing a ground monument in terms of <br />signage. <br /> <br />Goedeke requested more specific information regarding the <br />Residence Inn. Gerster proceeded to discuss the "town house" <br />type appearance of the Residence Inn. DeBenedet replied that <br />they are very good looking buildings, as he saw them in Eden <br />Prairie. However, he would like more final information on this <br />development relating to building exterior and signs. <br /> <br />DeBenedet also asked as to whether the southeast driveway could <br />be modified and lined up properly. Gerster replied that it <br />certainly was a possibility. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked how the mechanical units on the hotel would be <br />addressed. Gerster replied that there would be an attempt to <br />screen all units with parapets. <br /> <br />DeBenedet also stated his concern, as did other <br />Commission members, regarding the general vagueness <br />project and the specific developments. <br /> <br />Planning <br />of the <br /> <br />Dahlgren suggested that the Commission could approve the P.U.D., <br />the B-1B zoning, and the variance yet table the B-1B site plan <br />review, which then could be accomplished in terms of each spe- <br />cific project. <br /> <br />Berry moved, Maschka seconded, that Fine Associates request for <br />rezoning from B-1 to B-1B be approved. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: DeBenedet, Goedeke, Moeller, Berry, Maschka, <br />and Johnson. <br />Nays: None. <br /> <br />Berry moved, Maschka seconded, that the Fine Associates request <br />for Special Use Permit be approved with the following conditions: <br /> <br />1. That the P.U.D. be developed in accordance with the plans <br />dated 5/29/87. <br /> <br />2. That the driveways be properly aligned. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: DeBenedet, Goedeke, Moeller, Berry, Maschka, <br />and Johnson. <br />Nays: None. <br /> <br />Berry moved, Maschka seconded, that the Fine Associates request <br />for parking variance at 2665 and 2710 Snelling Frontage Road be <br />approved. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: DeBenedet, Goedeke, Moeller, Berry, Maschka, <br />and Johnson. <br />Nays: None. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.