Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page#13 <br /> <br />Wednesday, April 6, 1988 <br /> <br />the time/temperature message sign the total signage allowed would <br />be exceeded. <br /> <br />Dennis Spalla from Fine Associates appeared and gave a general <br />background and introduction to the project. <br /> <br />Stokes excused himself from this matter because of a possible <br />conflict. <br /> <br />Tom Gerster from KKE architects, who drew up the originally PUD <br />plan, discussed the minor amendments to the PUD plan. <br /> <br />Larry Paige from Arvid Ellness architects summarized the details <br />of the bank building. <br /> <br />Tom Ruvelson from sign Consultants summarized the signage <br />proposed on the building and the site. Ruvelson indicated that <br />they had interpreted the total signage allowed differently, and <br />had assumed that a time/temperature sign would be permitted on a <br />canopy. Ruvelson further stated that a time/temperature sign is <br />important to the Investors Savings Bank, and they would reduce <br />the size of the other signs on the building to allow them to have <br />that sign. <br /> <br />Tom Lohmann, the developer of the bank building, said that there <br />was confusion on how the maximum sq. ft. was calculated, and that <br />whether a time/temperature sign was allowed. He said they were <br />not asking for any special favors, that they would live within <br />the ordinance requirements. He further stated that they viewed <br />that the canopy was part of the building because it meets <br />building set back and the materials match the building and that <br />because of this they could attach a sign to it. He reiterated <br />that the sign is important to the bank, and that it would also <br />allow for advertisement of community events. <br /> <br />Johnson questioned the color of the signs, whether they would be <br />uniform. Ruvelson replied that the Investor Savings Bank signs <br />would all be uniform. Lohmann indicated that there would be <br />consistent signage throughout the proj ect and that the signs <br />would be illuminated in burgundy and beige color. <br /> <br />Maschka questioned the design of the pylon signs. <br />summarized the design. <br /> <br />Ruvelson <br /> <br />Goedeke expressed the opinion that the proposed moving sign would <br />be a hazard. <br /> <br />Honchell indicated that the consensus of the city in the past has <br />been that continuous reading signs are not appropriate and that <br />stringent conditions have been imposed on previous proposals. <br />Honchell further stated that long reads with these type of signs <br />