My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_850605
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1985
>
pm_850605
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:36 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/5/1985
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.
/
8
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 />Page 3 <br />Planning Commission Meeting <br />June 5, 1985 <br /> <br />intersection and some U turns would probably take place. Mr. Norstrom indicated <br />that during the first few weeks of business customers would have some trouble <br />getting to the site, but in time they will learn how to do it. Nostrom indicated <br />that he could have a traffic study done for the upcoming council meeting if <br />desired. <br /> <br />Mr. Moeller asked how the proposed parking compares with the normal Burger King <br />facility. Mr. Norstrom indicated that a normal facility has parking spaces in the <br />mid forties, and that is typically adequate. <br /> <br />Ms. Johnson referred to item no. 7 in the packet pertaining to roof sign, and asked <br />where the applicant was regarding that sign. Mr. Norstrom indicated the sign <br />would be similar to the sign located at their B-Snelling facility without the <br />"Home of the Whopper" words. Burger King's intent is to not request variance <br />to this sign at this time, but pursue it at a later time. <br /> <br />Mr. Matson asked if the proposed signage was similar to signage occuring on new <br />Burger King facilities in the metro area. Mr. Norstrom indicated the signs <br />were the new style. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller asked if they propose to screen along the railroad frontage. <br />Mr. Norstrom indicated that a cedar board on board fence was proposed along the <br />south property line, and that no screening was proposed along the west due to <br />the very steep and high freeway slopes at that location. <br /> <br />Mr. Wiski asked what the percentages of business generated by window and walk <br />through traffic were. Mr. Norstrom indicated that 40% of business was by drive <br />through and 60% was walk-in business, although these numbers fluctuate somewhat <br />with location. <br /> <br />Mr. Wiski asked if the two parking spaces proposed near Cleveland could be <br />elimir..~1, <" _ r:.:~ ,,' ;~." 1\, ; :~;_.,:'..~,t they lnterided to use those spaces as <br />employee/manager parking, so accessing them in busy periods was not a concern, <br />and they felt these spaces were essential to their development. <br /> <br />Mr. Matson asked for the peak number of employees at the facility. <br />Mr. Norstrom indicated that a maximum of 12 people would be employed during the <br />peak time at the lunch shift. <br /> <br />Ms. Berry asked what the hours of operation would be. Mr. Norstrom indicated <br />that with a breakfast menu, the facility would typically open at 7:00 a.m. and <br />usually close at 11:00 p.m., but the drive through facility might remain open <br />until 1:00 or 2:00 p.m., usually during the summer months only. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.