My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_890802
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1989
>
pm_890802
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:07 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:38:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
8/2/1989
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.
/
8
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' 2 <br /> <br />Wednesday, August 2, 1989 <br /> <br />Johnson asked for clarification on the screening of rooftop <br />mechanical units. Berg clarified the parapet wall design which <br />is being provided to screen the units. <br /> <br />Johnson questioned the color scheme. Berg explained that the <br />proposed color scheme involves gray, white and orange. <br /> <br />Berry questioned the building signage. Berg stated that they <br />would reuse and upgrade the present pylon sign and that it would <br />be a Total station and signage would be consistent with the <br />Total sign program. <br /> <br />stokes questioned the use of hard board siding on a portion of <br />the building and asked about the number of pumps. Berg responded <br />that it would be an all brick building and that there would be 3 <br />islands with 2 pumps on each island. <br /> <br />Maschka questioned if it would be a problem to move the curb on <br />the east edge an additional foot. Berg stated that it would not <br />be a problem. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Berry stated that she felt that this was a considerably improved <br />plan from the previous proposal. <br /> <br />Berry moved, Maschka seconded to recommend approval of the <br />special use permit for a convenience store with fuel sales and a <br />car wash and for variances to the rear yard setback of the <br />convenience store, the sideyard setback of the car wash, the <br />parking setback and the front yard setback for the canopy subject <br />to the following conditions: <br /> <br />1. That the site be developed in accordance to the plans dated <br />7/24/89. <br /> <br />2. That there be brick on all four sides of the building. <br /> <br />3. That there be parapet screening of rooftop mechanical <br />units. <br /> <br />4. That there be concrete curb installed on the perimeter of <br />all parking areas. <br /> <br />5. That final plans be submitted for staff review and approval. <br /> <br />6. That the curb on the east side have a minimum setback of 7 <br />feet instead of the 6 feet shown. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.