My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_880706
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
pm_880706
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:55 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
7/6/1988
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.
/
28
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 <br /> <br />Paget 26 <br /> <br />Wednesday, July 6, 1988 <br /> <br />materials on the front building would be rock base block at the <br />base and brick above, while on the mini-storage buildings there <br />would be embossed black above the rock face block base. <br /> <br />Johnson questioned what the architect meant by movement in the <br />building. Finneman responded that the movement describes the <br />change in the shape and orientation of the buildings. <br /> <br />Johnson expressed concern with the exterior materials, especially <br />painted block. Finneman responded that the materials would be <br />above standard material and could be color impregnated versus <br />painted. <br /> <br />Moeller stated that he has seen the type of products being <br />proposed and that 9 out of 10 people would not know that it <br />wasn't brick. <br /> <br />Berry testified that she had concerns about painted products and <br />the grey rock face block base. Finneman stated that the base <br />could be poured concrete, or the base material could be <br />eliminated. <br /> <br />DeBenedet expressed concern about the railroad property being <br />used for ponding. Finneman responded that they are talking to <br />the railroad to get their permission, and that there are ponds <br />there now. Finneman also stated that the parking lot could be <br />used to temporarily pond run-off. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Johnson expressed concern about the materials being proposed <br />especially in such a crucial area across the from the Twin Lakes <br />Redevelopment area. <br /> <br />Berry commented that she was not pleased with the finish and <br />these were the type of materials that the commission wanted to <br />avoid when they made the ordinance change. <br /> <br />stokes brought up the possibility of continuing this matter to <br />July 13th to allow the applicant to bring in a sample of the <br />products that they are proposing. <br /> <br />DeBenedet indicated concern about the ponding and what city <br />policies would be. Keel answered that ponding was not a city <br />policy but would be a requirement of the Rice Creek Water <br />Management Organization. DeBenedet stated that he was concerned <br />that the issues could not be fully addressed in a week. Finneman <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.