My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_900418
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1990
>
pm_900418
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:18 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
4/18/1990
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.
/
13
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 4 <br /> <br />Wednesday, April 18, 1990 <br /> <br />easement states that no trees are to be located on the berm for <br />inspection purposes but Williams is willing to extend the <br />agreement to include the property where expansion will occur and <br />grant emergency vehicle access. <br /> <br />Johnson requested that Mr. Dahlgren comment on the reliability of <br />the sight line drawings. <br /> <br />Dahlgren stated that the topographic maps used to determine these <br />sight lines were produced by a local company with a good <br />reputation. They are required to be within 1 foot of the actual <br />measurement. Dahlgren stated that these aerial topographic maps <br />are very reliable. <br /> <br />Goedeke questioned if the fence could be constructed after the <br />shopping center is completed to insure the correct screening. <br />Dunn stated that they could put it up last but the home owners <br />requested that it be put up prior to the development of the <br />shopping center. <br /> <br />Berry stated that the original plans included planting on the <br />berm with the condition that no trees be planted. Berry <br />questioned why trees were planted there. <br /> <br />stokes questioned why the height of the fence could not be <br />increased. Jopke stated that the City's ordinance states that a <br />fence can be up to 8 feet high for a business. The City has the <br />power to grant a variance for a higher fence. <br /> <br />stokes questioned the consideration of a higher fence. <br /> <br />Berry questioned exactly where the fence will be located and <br />what fence location options there are. Dunn stated that it can <br />be a maximum of 2 feet of the south of the Welsh Companies north <br />property line. <br /> <br />Dahlgren stated that 10 feet is about the height of the Council <br />Chambers ceiling. Aesthetically, a fence exceeding 10 feet in <br />height would be very ugly. Dahlgren stated that having the fence <br />follow the contours of the land would be an asset aesthetically. <br />Dahlgren added that the fence will be high enough to screen the <br />lower level of the ramp. <br /> <br />Goedeke suggested moving the fence closer to the resident lot <br />lines to increase screening. Dahlgren stated that this would <br />provide additional screening. <br /> <br />Bruce Anderson, 1708 Oakcrest, questioned if the fence will be <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.