pm_900103 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Page' 5 Wednesday, January 3, 1990 DeBenedet stated that a condition should be attached that if and when the remaining section of the building is rented, then the additional exterior must be renovated. Commers stated that they would agree with this option. Schneiderman stated that his business would require low intensity parking. DeBenedet asked what color the Schneiderman business would be. Schneiderman stated that the color has not been finalized but would possibly be maroon. It could be open for debate. DeBenedet stated that the city needs to know the color of the building. DeBenedet asked if Schneiderman will use a portion of the pylon sign. Schneiderman replied that they need to use a portion of the sign because their store is located further away from the corner and would not be seen. Goedeke stated a concern with the size of the sign. He commented that it is too large. Berry asked to see drawings of the sign and its location on the property. She questioned the possibility of having two signs. LeTendre commented that two signs might look strange. Commers stated that they would remove the present sign and put the new one in its place. Goedeke commented that this large sign would be an eye sore. Johnson compared the size of this sign to that of Loehmann's. Schneiderman stated that he wants the sign to draw people from Fairview Avenue. DeBenedet stated a concern about the parking and suggested that part of the building could be torn down to provide adequate parking. Dahlgren commented that potential tenants look for adequate parking ahead of time. it is the owners responsibility to enforce this. This amount of space will attract high ticket/volume dealers that require less parking space and use large amount of space for displays and storage. Wietecki asked why can't the city demand parking to the north.