My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_901205
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1990
>
pm_901205
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:33 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
12/5/1990
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.
/
15
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 />6 <br /> <br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Wednesday, December 5, 1990 <br /> <br />Ross summarized previous concerns relating to design colors and <br />discussed potential changes to the pylon signs. Ross highlighted <br />some proposed changes to the wall signage, including taking some <br />signage off the parapets and putting it onto the entry pavilions <br />to provide a better appearance. Ross stated that the same amount <br />of square footage would be maintained. He added that he was not <br />at a point to make final commitments because of lease <br />negotiations. <br /> <br />Johnson questioned what the time frame would be before Tanurb <br />could commit to a sign plan for the wall signage. Ross stated <br />that because of negotiations with a potential new tenant and with <br />the time frames in the existing leases that 18 months would be a <br />reasonable time frame. <br /> <br />Shardlow testified that he felt it was important that Tanurb have <br />an understanding of the city's desires concerning the signage <br />during the period when leases are turning over. He added that <br />Tanurb should come back with uniform sign criteria for the whole <br />development, with similar standards as are being proposed for the <br />pylons and monument signs. <br /> <br />Ross commented that he felt that it would be dull to have <br />consistency in the tenant sign band and that a wide variety makes <br />it more visually appealing and festive. He stated that he felt <br />it was appropriate to continue the existing criteria. <br /> <br />Shardlow indicated that it appeared that the city was intent on <br />requiring a uniform sign criteria for multitenant centers. He <br />felt that the city should not presuppose what the criteria should <br />be, but that a complete and total criteria for the whole center <br />should be presented for City review. <br /> <br />Johnson stated her concern about the 18 month time frame. Ross <br />pointed out that there is currently sign criteria in place. <br />Shardlow responded that this is private and part of the leases <br />and has not been approved by the city. <br /> <br />Ross stated that he thought the criteria was already part of the <br />approval and that he would be happy to submit it for city review. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that it appears the Commission is back where they <br />were a month ago. <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated that not much had been done and that maybe it <br />would be appropriate to continue this matter until staff says it <br />is ready to move forward. <br /> <br />Johnson said that perhaps Ross and Staff should get together and <br />work out the issues because there is no uniformity in the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.