Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Page' 6 <br /> <br />Wednesday, August 2, 1989 <br /> <br />Johnson stated that the applicant was creating a nice front but <br />only painting the rear which would not provide the same quality <br />of materials on all four sides of the building. <br /> <br />Amdahl pointed out that because of the grade changes, the north <br />and east sides are screened from view and that all four sides <br />would have the same appearance and texture. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that she had trouble visualizing the proposal. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Berry stated that <br />landscaping, finish, <br />the property. <br /> <br />she saw <br />trash, <br /> <br />a number of <br />fencing, paint, <br /> <br />problems including <br />and maintenance of <br /> <br />Johnson asked if there would be any support to continue this <br />matter and give the applicant additional opportunity to address <br />the Commission's concerns. <br /> <br />Maschka stated that the same quality materials on all four sides <br />is an issue but that the north and east sides are screened from <br />view. <br /> <br />wietecki asked what the City's policy is on requiring upgrading <br />of existing structures. Johnson replied that there are other <br />instances where the existing structures have been required to <br />upgrade to current standards. <br /> <br />Dahlgren stated that the requirement that there be equal quality <br />on all sides of the building was a good policy. Dahlgren <br />pointed out to the Commission that the solution used at the Post <br />Office, whereby all four sides of the site were stuccoed, would <br />be an alternative that could be used in this case to provide <br />consistent quality all the way around. <br /> <br />wietecki questioned how the mechanical equipment would be <br />screened. <br /> <br />Dahlgren stated that the west side was the critical face for <br />screening. Dahlgren also pointed out that the City has an <br />informal policy where if improvements were made to an existing <br />building, which were more than 50% of the existing value, than <br />all current requirements must be met. Dahlgren pointed out, in <br />this case, that there would be less than 50% added to value, but <br />that the applicant has been working with staff to upgrade as much <br />as is feasible to current standards. Stokes pointed out that the <br />increase in size was minimal in this case and it would be very <br />expensive to face all four sides with new material. Stokes <br />