2012-03-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 7, 2012 Page 2 Member Wozniak, based on last month’s Planning Commission discussion, asked if a 46 traffic study was still pending. 47 Mr. Paschke clarified that the developer needed to confirm traffic numbers for the City 48 Engineer to sign off, specific to the number and length of turn lane; and advised that this 49 information had been provided to Ms. Bloom for her review. 50 Regarding recent e-mail traffic and citizen concerns, Mr. Paschke clarified and reiterated 51 from past discussions that the Wal-Mart project approval itself was not related to action 52 before the Planning Commission and/or City Council, but only approval of the Preliminary 53 Plat and lot combination, and related rights-of-way, negotiation of a Development 54 Agreement, and payment of applicable park dedication fees, as well as property disposal. 55 As an allowed use in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, approval of the application 56 itself was administrative in nature. 57 Member Wozniak’s “Retirement” from the Planning Commission 58 Vice Chair Gisselquist recognized Planning Commissioner Joe Wozniak, noting that this 59 would be his last meeting, after serving for seven (7) years as a Commissioner for the 60 City of Roseville. Vice Chair Gisselquist thanked Member Wozniak for his service and 61 encouraged him to continue attending meetings as a citizen from the other side of the 62 dais. 63 5. Business/Discussion Item 64 a. PROJECT FILE 0013 65 Proposed amendments to Chapter 1011 Sign Regulations of the Roseville City 66 Code 67 City Planner Paschke reviewed the rationale in suggested modifications to the City’s 68 current sign ordinance; and additional refinement made by staff since last bringing it 69 before the Planning Commission at their May 4, 2011 meeting; and the direction provided 70 to staff from Commissioners at that time. 71 The draft presented in tonight’s meeting packet detailed specific areas highlighted, 72 proposed new or revised language, and statements removed or eliminated. 73 Chapter 1010.03 General Provisions, Item B (Exempted Signs – page 8) 74 Member Lester sought additional clarification that there was no enforcement of signs on 75 public right-of-way. 76 Mr. Paschke advised that this was based on free speech issues; with the City Attorney 77 advising that signage on public rights-of-way were managed by the City’s Engineering, 78 Public Works, and/or Police Departments but were not regulated by the City’s 79 Zoning/Planning Division. 80 Member Lester recognized that they were apparently allowed or disallowed base on 81 whether or not they interfered with traffic; however, he expressed his concerns with 82 safety since signage was typically installed on rights-of-ways at intersections, and he 83 often found them distracting for traffic and creating those safety concerns. 84 Vice Chair Gisselquist noted that their location at intersections was based on their desire 85 to gain attention; however, he noted the problematic nature of enforcement and 86 unintended consequences in attempting enforcement to others (e.g. youth organizations, 87 etc.). 88 Mr. Paschke noted the difficulty in attempting to enforce regulations if and when they 89 were created, since there was insufficient man hours available to effectively enforce 90 everything. 91 Section 1010.04 Maintenance, Removal of Signs, Fines (page 14) 92 With Mr. Paschke’s concurrence, Member Boguszewski noted that this is the heart of the 93 new language related to enforcement. Member Boguszewski questioned if a sign was 94 found out of compliance under the revised language (Section C), even though compliant 95 in past language, would it be addressed with no “grandfathering” from past code. 96