2011-05-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 04, 2011 Page 6 that the public open house would be done in a workshop format with model block sizes to 259 try various arrangements to better understand how and where a use could be arranged to 260 work within various areas. 261 Mr. Paschke advised that staff was still working out the details, but would advise the 262 proposed time table for the upcoming meetings as soon as possible and meeting 263 publication notice requirements and identifying a process for noticing the public. 264 Chair Boerigter thanked staff and Mr. lamb for the presentation; and encouraged the sue 265 of as many sources as possible to get as much public involvement and attendance at the 266 open house as possible. 267 b. PROJECT FILE 0013 268 Introduction of proposed revisions to Section 1010, Sign Regulation of the City 269 Code for review and comment 270 City Planner Thomas Paschke noted inclusion in the meeting packet of the initial redline 271 sign regulations for proposed revisions; with the purpose of tonight’s meeting to introduce 272 those revisions to initiate discussion of individual Commissioners and to receive their 273 immediate feedback as the process moved forward to amending the code, making it 274 similar in formatting to the recently adopted Zoning Ordinance in text, and with illustrative 275 examples. 276 Chair Boerigter expressed initial concern in the Master Sign Plan requirements, opining 277 that they appeared onerous if they included “for lease” signs at multi-tenant properties. 278 Discussion included what triggered requirements of a Master Sign Plan for multi-tenant 279 properties, whether replacement or new, challenges found over the last decade between 280 preferences of property owners and Roseville citizens; requirements triggering a Master 281 Sign Plan that provide a property owner to think more holistically on signage for their 282 entire site, similar to current code and not creating an issue in the past, other than 283 philosophically; and the most common complaints of property owners in the length of time 284 required to obtain a sign permit, usually created by their inability or delay in providing 285 necessary information to staff for a public hearing to proceed. 286 Chair Boerigter sought clarification from staff on their rationale for proposed 287 amendments: those needing revision based on issues found through practical use, those 288 modeled after other communities; and those indicated due to new technologies. 289 Member Boguszewski opined that some of the dynamic display sign provisions seemed 290 remarkably restrictive to him in their minute detail; as well as the general provisions and 291 statements on page 11 (Section C.9) that all other signs not expressly allowed in that 292 chapter seemed to not take into consideration future technology or sign types, and was 293 too generally prohibitive. 294 Mr. Paschke reviewed the new provisions related to dynamic display signs were based 295 on staff’s review of models from other communities, most modeled after that of the City of 296 Minnetonka’s sign ordinance on this type of sign, and based on their being the first 297 community to create an ordinance when Clear Channel came into their community with 298 plasma billboards in opposition to their code; and after a lengthy process with a land use 299 attorney, these provisions were created. While being refined to Roseville’s practical 300 application and its individual needs, Mr. Paschke opined that they appeared to be very 301 usable following their lengthy and very public review process. Mr. Paschke advised that 302 this allowed businesses located in Roseville to install this type of signage, similar to that 303 installed by the City at the OVAL, while remaining within the criteria and parameters of 304 the proposed code revisions. 305 Chair Boerigter sought staff’s rationale in determining if this criteria was the right criteria 306 for the City of Roseville as opposed to other cities. 307 In order to clarify, Chair Boerigter noted the time that had been spent in drafting, 308 reviewing and fine-tuning the current sign ordinance; and asked that staff articulate why 309 specific changes were proposed; those items that were found problematic in practical 310