Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page#17 <br /> <br />Wednesday, February 1, 1989 <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated concern about the number of parking spaces, <br />layout of the site and a concern about narrower parking stalls. <br /> <br />Goedeke stated a concern about the amount of theatre parking. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that the ramp could be made larger to provide <br />addi tional parking for the theatres. Stokes stated that there <br />were over 1600 parking stalls and that they are only 30 parking <br />stalls short. <br /> <br />Dahlgren stated that the Commission could consider a condition to <br />require the ramp to be expanded if there was a problem in the <br />future. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Moeller, DeBenedet, <br />Maschka, Johnson <br /> <br />Berry, <br /> <br />Goedeke, <br /> <br />Nays: None <br /> <br />Abstain: Stokes <br /> <br />Planninq File 1923 <br /> <br />Sign Consultants, Inc. request for sign location variances for <br />signs at the Centre pointe Business Park. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Dahlgren summarized the location of the site and the proposed <br />signs. <br /> <br />Tom Ruvelson stated the variances were necessary so that the <br />signs would not intrude on the existing pathway and landscaping <br />in the area. Ruvelson summarized the design and materials or the <br />proposed signs. <br /> <br />Johnson inquired if the expansion of County Road D would impact <br />the proposed signs. Keel responded that there would be no impact <br />on the signs. <br /> <br />Moeller asked how the signs would be lit. Ruvelson replied that <br />there would be external ground lighting. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked how resistent the proposed sign materials would <br />be to chipping and vandalism. Ruvelson responded that the <br />materials can be repaired and that panels can be replaced. <br />Ruvelson added that the porcelain panels have a low fade rating. <br />