My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_870805
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1987
>
pm_870805
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:50 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
8/5/1987
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.
/
9
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 />August 5, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Maschka asked what the adaptable potential was of the building. <br />Gerster replied that other retail and other services could <br />operate out of the facility. <br /> <br />Johnson asked about the trucks moving in and out of the site. <br />Gerster replied that there would be one to two deliveries per <br />day, and the trucks would leave the site. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked what would occur during the first stage of con- <br />struction. Gerster replied that the items depicted on the drawing <br />would comprise the first construction stage, and the respective <br />driveways would align properly. <br /> <br />Janisch asked how the ponding would be handled. Gerster replied <br />that the existing pond would be expanded, and new ones would be <br />developed as the other elements of the proposal came to fruition. <br /> <br />Maschka asked for a clarification of the previous P.D.D. that was <br />approved at the July meeting. Waldron explained that the P.D.D. <br />was approved and the respective site plans can come before the <br />Planning Commission as needed. Waldron stated that he and <br />Dahlgren had talked to Mr. Bell, and Bell was confident that <br />having the P.D.D. in place and requiring future site plan reviews <br />would provide the City the proper protection. <br /> <br />Berry asked whether the pathway can serve the Residence Inn. <br />Janisch stated that one was already in place that could address <br />that concern. <br /> <br />Maschka asked what would be the color of the sign. Gerster <br />replied that it would be white with a red neon tinge at night. <br /> <br />Cushman stated her concern with respect to the gaudiness of some <br />of Slumberland's sign. Gerster emphasized that this one would be <br />a clean, white color. <br /> <br />Maschka stated that the building was designed extremely well, and <br />encouraged the developer not to over do the sign. <br /> <br />Johnson <br />typical <br />dropped. <br /> <br />asked for confirmation that Slumberland is dropping the <br />orange, and Gerster replied that yes, orange is being <br /> <br />DeBenedet reiterated his understanding that if the store's use <br />would change, the new occupant would again have to appear before <br />the Planning Commission and Council to review the appropriate <br />parking. <br /> <br />Nancy Reiter, of 3106 North Victoria, asked why two Slumberland's <br />were proposed in the area. The owner replied that the current <br />lease expires in the Fall. <br /> <br />DeBenedet moved, Stokes seconded, that Fine Associates request <br />for site plan review and division of lot at 2665 and 2710 <br />Snelling Frontage Road be approved with the following conditions: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.