Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MARCH 14, 1996 <br />Hotzler felt they have gone way beyond what they <br />initially proposed for renovation of the shopping <br />center. The initial estimate was for a $500,000 <br />renovation. That figure is now at $750,000. However, <br />if it takes a little more to make it right, they are <br />willing to do it. <br />Carson felt the thin sign poles did not fit and should <br />be tied in with the look of the building. <br />Keis pointed out the Board has recommendation power, <br />and the City Planner is reminding the Board of the <br />architectural guidelines. <br />Keis felt back -lit signs should be allowed for the <br />shopping center, pointing out that is what is there <br />currently. <br />Hartwell Amlee, 2971 Rice Street, Roseville, commented <br />that he can understand grandfathering in the Market <br />Place Shopping Center because it is an existing <br />building. However, he asked that future projects be <br />required to comply with the City's architectural <br />guidelines. <br />Keis asked how much wider the poles would be once they <br />were covered. <br />Hotzler suggested 6 inches by 12 inches. <br />Carson suggested 12 inches by 12 inches. Keis felt <br />there should be some leeway on the width of the poles. <br />Keis recommended that the Market Place Shopping Center <br />sign be approved as submitted with the requirement the <br />sign poles be covered with materials matching the <br />shopping center building whether that be metal or <br />brick, and that back -lit plastic signs be allowed <br />recognizing this is a variance to the architectural <br />design guidelines, but recognizing the circumstances of <br />working with an existing building, and suggesting that <br />the property owner work with the City Planner on the <br />modifications to the proposed sign. <br />Motion seconded by Barraclough. <br />Motion carried 6 - 0. <br />11 <br />Page 71 <br />