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 />Pagel 5 <br /> <br />Wednesday, August 2, 1989 <br /> <br />Lorraine Leaf, 1776 N. Dunlap, questioned if the sign would be <br />any higher than the existing sign, and pointed out that the fence <br />along the north property line is in poor condition and that major <br />work on it is necessary. She questioned whether the building <br />would be expanding to the street on the east side. Amdahl stated <br />that the proposed addition would go no further to the east than <br />the existing lean-to building. Amdahl stated that at the <br />neighborhood meeting, there was a request for pedestrian access <br />to the site which they could provide. Amdahl pointed out that <br />Rainbow didn't own the site in the past and they do now and that <br />they will police the area better. Galvin, the District Manager, <br />assured the Commission that the site would be kept clean. <br /> <br />Leaf pointed out to the Commission that Margolis had promised a <br />pedestrian opening to their site but that the opening had been <br />blocked for security reasons. <br /> <br />Johnson questioned if Margolis needs to agree to the new <br />pedestrian access. Amdahl stated that the proposed opening would <br />be on Rainbow property, therefore, Margolis does not need to be <br />involved. <br /> <br />Berry questioned who owns the fences on the northeast side of the <br />property. Amdahl replied that Rainbow owns them both. <br /> <br />Delbert Leaf, 1776 N. Dunlap, asked if there would be any noise <br />barriers constructed because of the noise of the trucks using the <br />east loading docks. Galvin explained the proposed loading dock <br />situation and stated that the use of the docks on the east side <br />would be limited and would be used less than they currently are. <br />Galvin agreed to look at the issue of additional noise barriers. <br />Amdahl stated that they could look at providing additional <br />planting along the east edge. <br /> <br />Johnson asked what design alternatives there were to provide <br />addi tional noise barriers. Dahlgren stated that landscaping <br />doesn't necessarily effect actual noise levels and that any <br />barrier must be solid. Dahlgren stated that noise in this case <br />may not be stopped by landscaping . Galvin pointed out that <br />because of the new design of the loading docks with boots that <br />unloading would occur inside vs. outside which should help the <br />noise problem. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that she was troubled by the proposed exterior <br />materials. Amdahl summarized the proposed new exterior building <br />materials and design and stated that the remainder of the <br />building would be painted to match the new. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.