My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_871007
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1987
>
pm_871007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:50 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/7/1987
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.
/
6
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 7, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Goedeke also asked whether this development placed the City over <br />the total number of economy rooms that it expected to be compe- <br />titive, and how can the City address this situation. Dahlgren <br />replied that the City basically can't use land use for market <br />intervention purposes. <br /> <br />Maschka asked for additional clarification as to whether this <br />development does put the City over its economy capacity. Waldron <br />replied that with everything proposed, it does place the absorp- <br />tion potential over the limits depicted in the Laventhol study. <br /> <br />Stokes asked for clarification as to whether the facility was all <br />brick. Reynolds replied that it was. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked for clarification of the sign permit process, <br />which Dahlgren proceeded explain. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked what <br />shrubbery impeding on <br />a number of trees may <br />as being a problem. <br /> <br />the concern was with respect to the <br />the electrical cable. Janisch replied that <br />have to adjusted, but did not envision this <br /> <br />Stokes asked whether the sign would be in harmony with the motel. <br />Reynolds replied that they would be placing the sign on a pylon. <br /> <br />Johnson asked what colors are utilized. <br />and red. <br /> <br />Reynolds replied blue <br /> <br />Moeller asked how the trash was screened. Reynolds stated that <br />either a chain link fence or matching masonry. <br /> <br />Stokes asked what Motel 6 used in terms of market studies. <br />Reynolds replied that the company did traffic counts and analyzed <br />the competition in the area. <br /> <br />Jim Reiter asked whether Motel 6 used non-smoking rooms. Reynolds <br />replied that they did not. <br /> <br />Maschka moved, DeBenedet seconded, that the Motel 6 request for a <br />Special Use Permit at 2300 Cleveland Avenue North be approved <br />with the following conditions: <br /> <br />1. That the trash container be enclosed in a masonry structure <br />matching the building. <br /> <br />2. That staff approve engineering and landscape plans. <br /> <br />3. That the proper funds be placed in escrow for the sidewalk. <br /> <br />4. That the development be constructed as per plans and artist's <br />rendering dated 5/17/87. <br /> <br />Discussion <br />Ann Berry stated she liked the fact that the landscaping was <br />irrigated. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.