My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_910213
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1991
>
pm_910213
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:34 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/13/1991
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.
/
16
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 />Wednesday February 13, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />personnel on staff to do some patrolling. <br /> <br />Michael Pedersen, 1790 Oakcrest, asked for clarification on <br />which tenants would be eliminated to make way for the new anchor <br />tenant. Ross pointed out that three existing tenants will not <br />exist in the center after the change and that three others may be <br />relocated in other spaces in the center. Ross added that this <br />was still being finalized. <br /> <br />Pedersen stated that <br />closer to residents. <br />mechanical equipment <br />originally required. <br /> <br />the proposal would result in semis being <br />Pedersen also stated that the rooftop <br />on the center was never screened as <br /> <br />Shardlow stated that the City has no authority to regulate past <br />issues and must stick to issues related to the specific proposal <br />before the Council at the present time because the proposal does <br />not involve a 10% expansion or a 20% increase in value. <br /> <br />Pedersen questioned that if the issues can't be addressed now, <br />when can they be addressed. <br /> <br />Shardlow discussed the history of the rooftop screening issue, <br />pointing out that the applicant met with Howard Dahlgren and <br />Gordy Beseth and that Howard Dahlgren, in a letter approved the <br />elimination of some of the rooftop screening. <br /> <br />Pedersen asked how high the screen wall was adjacent to the <br />proposed loading dock. Gerster added that the brick wall would <br />be 13 feet high, which should be sufficient to screen any truck <br />allowed to travel on a federal freeway. Gerster pointed out <br />that the wall height had been increased 18 inches above the <br />original proposal to insure that all trucks would be screened. <br /> <br />Pedersen stated that the sound of trucks running at the loading <br />docks would bounce off the walls and be magnified and requested <br />that the loading dock be totally enclosed by a roof and a door. <br /> <br />Johnson pointed out that this was the solution required at Har <br />Mar. <br /> <br />Johnson <br />loading <br />running. <br /> <br />asked <br />dock. <br /> <br />if the trucks would be running when using the <br />The reply was that they typically would be <br /> <br />Shardlow stated while he is not an accoustician that he believed <br />that the energy of the sound from the trucks would be dissipated <br />by the screen wall. <br /> <br />Pedersen stated that Shardlow's previous comment should be <br />recorded in the minutes. Pedersen stated that the neighborhood <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.