2011-05-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 04, 2011 Page 7 application by staff; those items needing formatting to coincide with the newly-adopted 311 zoning code; and those needing adding or revised based on new technology or types of 312 signage. 313 Mr. Paschke advised that the criteria was intentionally detailed, based on past experience 314 of other communities and signage issues, and that the last time the sign ordinance was 315 reviewed, new technology had been developed. Mr. Paschke further noted that the 316 previous review had glossed over dynamic display signs since they were new, and the 317 City had taken a “wait and see” approach to let other communities vet them and their 318 related issues; with the time for the City to address them now at hand, and needing to be 319 reflected in City Code. Mr. Paschke noted that the City had already installed a dynamic 320 display sign on the City Hall campus at the OVAL, and needed a code allowing others to 321 install them as well. Mr. Paschke advised that people were already installing them, 322 utilizing them incorrectly or not meeting current code requirements, noting that their 323 operation of the displays didn’t meet the strictness of current or proposed code; and the 324 time was now to provide a code that staff could enforce. Mr. Paschke disagreed with the 325 perception that the proposed code attempted to micromanage dynamic display signs, 326 noting the need to clearly lay out all details for this type of signage and allow for no 327 ambiguity in code, based on potential issues as experienced by other communities. 328 Mr. Paschke advised that the next staff report, for the public hearing format, would 329 provide the requested staff and practical application rationale for proposed revisions as 330 was being requested by commissioners. 331 Discussion included impacts or lack thereof for pre-existing, nonconforming signage 332 already installed; rationale in determining whether the right standards and criteria are 333 being applied; lack of manpower for staff to manage prohibited signs, and enforcement 334 done reactively or complaint-based rather than proactively due to staffing constraints; 335 potential inequities in businesses with existing signage and new provisions that were 336 more restrictive and impacting their ability to attract customers; and staff’s intent with sign 337 code revisions, as with current code, to create parameters to create signage that is more 338 aesthetically pleasing than past practice; and ongoing public outcries related to banners. 339 Mr. Paschke advised that staff had addressed requests relaxing temporary signs and 340 professionally designed or constructed sandwich boards; and a consistent permit 341 process; proper management of signs as continually addressed by the public complaints 342 fielded by staff; and balancing benefits of signs to the business and overall aesthetic of 343 the community. Mr. Paschke advised that the current sign code made great strides 344 forward over the last five (5) years, but there remained room for improvement in finding 345 ways to work with proprietors while keeping rules to benefit the community at large. 346 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Paschke advised that the application requirements 347 more clearly spelled out requirements than the previous application forms, similar to 348 provisions for administrative deviations and other processes; with steps listed for the 349 applicant to follow, the appeal process per code, and other provisions. 350 Related to temporary signs, Mr. Paschke advised that rules were being relaxed to allow 351 more days allowed for temporary signage; a nominal permit fee, as requested and 352 agreed to by business owners using temporary signs; and broadening the types of 353 temporary signs allowed. 354 At the request of a majority of commissioners, Mr. Paschke advised that staff would 355 further research sandwich signs on live models or other types of signage on people and 356 how Roseville might wish to address that; even though staff was not recommending such 357 signage. 358 Member Wozniak noted the recurring staff preference in limiting traffic distractions 359 through dynamic sign restrictions and other types of signage. 360 Chair Boerigter suggested that major retail centers probably had their own restrictions 361 against people walking around advertising their businesses. 362