My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_890201
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1989
>
pm_890201
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:00 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:38:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/1/1989
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.
/
19
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#10 <br /> <br />Wednesday, February 1, 1989 <br /> <br />commissions attention to the fact that the state is considering <br />legislation to establish setbacks from pipelines which could be <br />of a concern at this particular center. Nisja told the <br />Commission that the Fire Department would like to maintain access <br />to the site on the northeast corner. <br /> <br />Paul Dunn discussed the company and the history of the project. <br /> <br />Tom Gerstner summarized the project. <br /> <br />Dick Wolsfeld outlined the traffic study that was completed for <br />the project which indicated that there was sufficient capacity on <br />existing street systems to handle the increased traffic, that <br />with the proposed changes there would provide sufficient access <br />to the center, and that there would be minimal impact on the <br />neighborhood to the north of the center. Wolsfeld outlined <br />several alternatives which could be carried out to minimize <br />traffic impact on the adjacent neighborhood if it became a <br />problem. <br /> <br />DeBenedet questioned whether consideration had been given to <br />parking ramp security. <br /> <br />Wolsfeld stated that because the grade change allows higher <br />ceilings with sufficient lighting, the ramp will have a more open <br />and secure feeling. <br /> <br />DeBenedet <br />personnel. <br />yet. <br /> <br />questioned whether there would be any security <br />Wolsfeld replied that this had not been determined <br /> <br />DeBenedet questioned the finish on the ramp, where elevators <br />would be provided and handicap accessibility to the theatres. <br />Gerstner responded that a majority of the ramp would be open but <br />that there would be low walls on the upper level to shield <br />headlights. Gerstner summarized the elevator locations, restroom <br />locations, and stated that they have not solved the theatre <br />accessibility problem yet but they would be looking at it and <br />correcting existing problems. <br /> <br />Maschka asked who would be using the parking in back of the new <br />addition. Gerstner replied that that would be employee parking. <br /> <br />Johnson asked who would be parking west of the new parking ramp. <br /> <br />Gerstner responded that these would be overflow spaces. <br /> <br />Johnson asked what the exterior building materials would be on <br />the parking ramp. Gerstner summarized the proposed materials. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.