2012_0514_Packet as amended - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Extract of the Planning Commission Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Draft Minutes - Wednesday, April 04, 2012 1 1. Public Hearing 2 PROJECT FILE 0013 3 Consideration of Comprehensive Amendments to most sections of Chapter 1010 (Sign 4 Regulations) of the Roseville City Code 5 Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing at approximately 6:41 p.m. 6 City Planner Paschke reviewed the redlined copy and reformatting, as well as the proposed final 7 formatting, with the new Purpose and Findings (Section 1010.01); all as detailed in the Request 8 for Planning Commission Action dated April 4, 2012. 9 Member Strohmeier questioned if there was anything in the revised version that addressed 10 signage, such as speed wagons. 11 Mr. Paschke advised that the sign ordinance did not address those types of signs, as they were 12 considered “public” versus “private” signs; and this ordinance wasn’t intended as an enforcement 13 mechanism for right-of-way signs, but only referenced in the code. Mr. Paschke advised that the 14 sign ordinance did not speak to “prohibited” signs either that may be placed in a right-of-way, 15 since those signs and their placement were regulated and enforced by different divisions of the 16 City than the Community Development Department, namely the Police and/or Public Works 17 Departments. 18 Chair Boerigter expressed his confusion on how residential signs were regulated; or if they were 19 exempted from the sign permit process (e.g. celebratory signs for graduations or other special 20 events in a private residential yard). 21 Mr. Paschke advised that it depended on what Chair Boerigter meant by a “residential” sign, 22 whether for a home occupation or a sign in the front yard. 23 Chair Boerigter clarified that one area of concern was related to the proposed ordinance’s 24 reference and definition of “name plate” signs. 25 Mr. Paschke advised that such signage was exempted under the City’s Building Code or 26 addressed in other sections of City Code (e.g. street numbers and their sizes); and other 27 standards addressed by the City’s Building Code. Mr. Paschke advised that signage, using a 28 protest sign as an example, in a residential front yard was addressed by free speech issues; and 29 the proposed sign ordinance does not speak to those. 30 Chair Boerigter referenced Section 1010.09 (Other Temporary Signs) as well as Section 1010.03 31 (General Provisions), with the General Provisions stating that it was unlawful to erect a sign 32 without a permit unless addressed in the ordinance; and asked staff to provide the location in the 33 proposed ordinance that it clearly stated that a permit was not required for a name plate or other 34 examples. 35 Mr. Paschke advised that the chart shown after line 293 of the proposed ordinance showed 36 allowed signs for residential districts, with both signage for home occupation and name plates 37 addressed. 38 Chair Boerigter questioned if a name plate was defined as a “temporary sign;” with Mr. Paschke 39 advising that it would be considered “permanent.” 40 Chair Boerigter suggested that Section 1010.09 be renamed to “Other Signs” rather than “Other 41 Temporary Signs;” since not all signs addressed therein were considered temporary. 42 Mr. Paschke concurred that the Section could be re-titled as “Other Signs,” since some were 43 temporary and some not. 44 By consensus, Members concurred that Lines 406-208 and the title of that section be revised to 45 remove the word, “temporary. 46