Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Paget 7 <br /> <br />Wednesday, August 2, 1989 <br /> <br />stated he was more concerned about the additional green strip and <br />stated that he would like to allow the project to proceed. <br /> <br />Amdahl stated that they would be willing to work with staff. <br />Amdahl said that he was concerned that by adding the green <br />strips along the east side that parking would have to be <br />realigned and the number of parking stalls available would have <br />to be reduced. Amdahl summarized the new lighting proposed on <br />the site and stated that they had looked at screening of rooftop <br />units but that any screening would require major structural <br />al terations to the existing roof. Amdahl said that the trees <br />along the west side could be moved or different varieties used <br />to keep the trees from growing into power lines. Amdahl <br />indicated that catch basins could be added to address drainage <br />concerns. Amdahl stated that they had concern with stucco on the <br />north and east side because it could be easily damaged. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that she supported continuing this matter for <br />further study because it is a large and important project. <br /> <br />Berry stated that stucco is not necessarily the answer but that <br />all four sides should have the same look. Berry added that it <br />was important to be consistent with past actions. Berry <br />questioned the need for sidewalks. <br /> <br />Keel outlined the City sidewalk policy. <br /> <br />Berry moved and Maschka seconded to continue consideration of <br />this matter until September 6, 1989 to allow further study of <br />building finish, parking lot problems including drainage, slope <br />repair and provision of additional green strips, landscape <br />issues, sidewalk issues, signage issues, and rooftop screening <br />issues. <br /> <br />Stokes questioned why there would be structural problems if <br />parapet walls are added. Amdahl stated that the problem relates <br />to drifting of snow on the roof behind the screen walls. <br /> <br />Stokes questioned the applicant if they understood what the <br />Planing Commission is looking for. Amdahl replied that the only <br />difficulty would be in resolving the appearance issue and what to <br />do on the existing three sides of the building. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that painted block has not been accepted in the <br />past. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />wietecki, <br />Johnson <br /> <br />Berry, <br /> <br />Stokes, Maschka, <br />