My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_881207
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
pm_881207
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:59 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:38:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
12/7/1988
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.
/
11
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 />page# 3 <br /> <br />Wednesday, December 7, 1988 <br /> <br />types of trees and pointed out that it was their intent to supply <br />a variety of trees but not to screen the development completely <br />from adjacent residential uses. <br /> <br />Johnson asked what size the trees would be when they were <br />planted. Erickson answered that the size would be according to <br />City standards. Dahlgren pointed out that the City does not have <br />specific size requirements but generally looked for 2-1/2 inch <br />caliper deciduous trees and 4-6 foot carniferous trees. <br /> <br />Johnson expressed concern that the developer has not provided <br />enough information on signage and landscaping. DeBenedet pointed <br />out that this is the final review by the Planning Commission and <br />that it is important to get all the information. Dahlgren <br />testified that it is been staff's position that a developer has <br />the right to install signage if it is not shown in the PUD, as <br />long as they meet the sign ordinance requirements. <br /> <br />Seigle stated that their intent is to approach signage in a class <br />way. Signs would be located on the building or would be low <br />ground signs in character with the building. <br /> <br />DeBenedet inquired what the maximum square footage of signage <br />might be. Seigle responded that they would install whatever the <br />ordinance would allow. Dahlgren stated that 70 sq. feet of <br />signage would be allowed along Lexington and 100 sq. feet along <br />Highway 36. <br /> <br />Moeller stated that signage would not be obj ectionable on the <br />building. <br /> <br />Johnson stated a concern that if the landscaping wasn't done all <br />at once, that the landscaping would not appear uniform because <br />the landscaping installed initially would be larger and more <br />mature. Erickson replied that they did not want to have to <br />remove landscaping in 2-3 years when the second phase is <br />constructed. Erickson pointed out that only a small area would <br />not be landscaped initially and that all the perimeter planting <br />would be done in the first phase. <br /> <br />Johnson asked what happens to the existing landscaping on the <br />site. Erickson replied that it would be taken down because of <br />soil correction work. <br /> <br />Berry asked how many of the students who live in the town houses <br />would have cars. Kinzer testified that approximately 50% of <br />those students have cars and that they would be separated so that <br />they weren't all in one building. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.