Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Page'13 <br /> <br />Wednesday, September 6, 1989 <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Dahlgren summarized the location, the proposal, the relationship <br />to the Twin Lakes plan and the required variance. Dahlgren <br />pointed out that it might be appropriate to add grass and <br />deciduous trees 40 feet on center along the south side of the <br />property. <br /> <br />Lawrence McGough introduced letters of support from adjacent land <br />owners. McGough said that MAC Properties is the actual owners <br />of the property. McGough pointed out to the Commission that they <br />intend to stay there and that what is being provided is storage <br />space which also allows for future needs. <br /> <br />Maschka questioned what the exterior finish of the addition would <br />be. McGough replied that it would be precast panels painted to <br />match the existing building. McGough pointed out that their site <br />is one of the finest in Roseville and is well maintained. <br />McGough stated that he had no problem with providing landscaping <br />along the south side but that it may not survive because of snow <br />and trucks from the adjacent site. <br /> <br />stokes questioned why they wouldn't consider professional <br />storage. McGough answered that he would like to have the plans <br />on site because of the uncertainty of when and what they might <br />need at a given time. <br /> <br />Goedeke asked if there would be any <br />conditioning or ventilation equipment. <br />there would be no new units. <br /> <br />additional rooftop air <br />McGough responded that <br /> <br />DeBenedet questioned if the addition would have similar building <br />materials to the existing structure. Dahlgren replied that staff <br />did not discuss brick or other materials with the applicant. <br /> <br />Johnson questioned the history of the site. McGough discussed <br />the various structures and additions which have been built. <br /> <br />wietecki pointed out that this was similar to the Rainbow <br />proposal and questioned why similar materials on all four sides <br />haven't been required. <br /> <br />Berry replied that it wouldn't apply in this case because what is <br />being requested is a variance to sideyard setback only. Dahlgren <br />stated that the Commission could require brick if they so <br />desired. <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated that the new addition should be brick to match <br />the building. DeBenedet added that the city has gone through a <br />