My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2004_0223
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
CC_Minutes_2004_0223
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:27:01 AM
Creation date
7/13/2005 4:10:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/23/2004
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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 />Regular City Council Meeting - 02/23/04 <br />Page 17 <br /> <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Ihlan, Schroeder, Maschka, Kough and Klausing. <br />Nays: None. <br /> <br />8. <br /> <br />Consider Authorizing Certain Signs on City Property <br />Mayor Klausing noted that this had been a Consent Agenda item <br />several months ago, but had been reviewed at the Council's <br />request for a legal opinion to determine if the City's placement <br />of city signs was consistent with city ordinance. Mayor Klausing <br />further noted, from the City Attorney opinion dated February 6, <br />2004, that even if the City's practice was not consistent, it <br />appeared that the City was exempt. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson concurred with Mayor Klausing's <br />summary related to temporary city signs on public property, as <br />well as city and public signs, noting that as per City Code, <br />Chapter 1009.03, only permanent city signs needed City Council <br />approval. Mr. Anderson noted that in interpreting general rules <br />related to the zoning ordinance, the benefit of temporary signs <br />for public purposes outweighed the need to comply with zoning <br />ordinances, including banners. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder noted that he was the one who pulled <br />the item from the Consent Agenda previously for clarification; <br />opining that the City should lead by example, and no city signage <br />should be any different than that required for compliance from <br />residents and/or commercial entities in the city. Councilmember <br />Schroeder further questioned that, even if the City has authority <br />to place temporary signs and/or banners on public property, <br />should they do something no one else can do. (i.e., banner)? <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka noted that most of the other applicable <br />banners are used for commercial purposes, while the City's were <br />for public information purposes. <br /> <br />John Kysylyczyn, 3083 Victoria Street N <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn alleged errors in the staff report related to the <br />frequency of City Council approval of signs. Mr. Kysylyczyn <br />provided background information related to approximately four <br />(4) years ago when a City dump truck was parked in the City <br />Hall yard with a banner used for advertising. Mr. Kysylyczyn <br /> <br />Consider <br />Authorizing <br />Certain Signs on <br />City Property <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.