2008_0728_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

B b lu I I U21 A WMAKIIII I ILAJAWN W 00 W 10 9 U W4 101 1%0 WN UbIbUINI a 0 121 MINI C. PROJECT FILE 0013 Considerati ©n of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment of Sections 1010 (Signs) of the City Code to Clarify Sections pertaining to temporary signs and Master Sign Plans Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Project File 0011 City Planner Paschke reviewed several challenges in interpretation, consideration and approval of temporary signs, as well as cumbersome process review considerations since adoption of the new sign code last May, and suggesting further refinement in execution, based on comments from sign companies and contractors., Mr., Paschke summarized those items as detailed in the staff report., Mr., Paschke reviewed size and materials to be used for temporary signage definitions and construction materials; business and industrial "For Sale/Lease" signs; Master sign plans; and enforcement; and developed proposed language to address current inadequacies with the various sections as noted, specifically detailed in Section 4 of the staff report., Mr., Paschke further reviewed proposed amendment to those occurrences where permits were not required, and amendments to Chapter 1010.031311c (real estate signs; business and industrial); and Chapter 1010.,03D (Master Sign Plan), subsection 5 (approval process) provisions. , Staff recommended APPROVAL of the proposed amendments to Section 1010 (Sign Regulations) of Roseville City Code, as detailed in the staff report dated July 2, 2008., Discussion included type of construction materials and definition of temporary signs; number of days allotted for signs; new permits for each event and associated fees; problems with habitual offenders and subsequent penalties and fewer habitual offenders since the new code has been implemented� education and public information; and lack of staff for signage monitoring, enforcement, and offenders., Further discussion included multiple events and whether separate permits were required; and the need to further refine and clarify that language to avoid confusion; separati ©n of signage square footages for type of sign (i.e., building versus freestanding signs); need for clarification of existing or potential mounted signs and their signs for multi-tenant buildings; current legal, non-conforming signage; situations requiring a Master Sign Plan process, and staff's goal to not have "for lease" signage on buildings at all, but to incorporate it into freestanding signage; numbering of the four (4,) examples and each of their definitions to avoid confusion; and revising all signage to thirty-two (3,2) square feet for consistency. Further discussion included the need for more flexibility on materials for signage (i.e., durable, all-weather materials including but not limited to plywood). Additional discussion included providing opportunity for engineering and other departments to participate in sign "decision - making, without the need for the full Design Review Committee (DRC) as a whole for each sign decisiom discretion of the Community Development Director for the extent of staff review and commended needed on a case by case basis; and the need for staff to review