My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_890906
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1989
>
pm_890906
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
9/6/1989
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.
/
18
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 />Paget/: 3 <br /> <br />Wednesday, September 6, 1989 <br /> <br />Berry pointed out that there have been other cases such as the <br />mini storage facility where there has been considerable <br />discussion on this matter. Berry also stated that the City has <br />been stung in the past with the Tower Glenn proj ect where the <br />back looks like a back. Berry also said that if the Margolis <br />landscaping facility is removed, the entire east side of the <br />Rainbow structure would be visible and stated that now is the <br />time to bring the building into compliance. <br /> <br />Maschka questioned if there was an impasse on this issue or has <br />staff given the OK to the current proposal. Amdahl replied that <br />the developer is spending alot of money in other areas and that <br />they got the message that this might be acceptable. Dahlgren <br />replied that the developer has been very cooperative and that it <br />is staff's role to help them come up with the best solution <br />possible but staff does not make the decision. <br /> <br />Maschka clarified the reasons for not stuccoing the whole <br />building including the areas not seen and that there would be <br />potential for damage from trucks in those area. Johnson replied <br />that there would also be a problem with painted block. <br /> <br />Goedeke questioned how much stucco would be provided in the areas <br />where only partial stuccoing would occur. Amdahl replied about <br />half of the wall. <br /> <br />Goedeke questioned if <br />replied yes. Goedeke <br />stuccoing the whole wall. <br /> <br />stucco <br />stated <br /> <br />would <br />that <br /> <br />be pre-colored. Amdahl <br />they may be better off <br /> <br />Johnson stated that chipped paint is not the desire of the city. <br /> <br />Amdahl stated that the difference between stuccoing the whole <br />building and painting part of it is approximately $25,000 and <br />that stucco is easier to repair. <br /> <br />Johnson pointed out that this is the first structure in the strip <br />of commercial buildings in that area being remodeled and that it <br />is important to set with a good precedent for other remodeling in <br />the future. <br /> <br />Maschka questioned the need for design of the speaker screens and <br />expressed concern about people lurking behind them. Amdahl <br />stated that there would be approximately an 18" gap between it <br />and that there would be a sidewalk, which would be well lit, and <br />that the screens would be consistent and provide a better <br />exterior appearance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.