2012-03-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 7, 2012 Page 4 Member Wozniak questioned if an existing sign over-rode an abandoned sign in the 146 language; with Mr. Paschke responding affirmatively, noting that it was addressed in 147 master sign plans. 148 Member Lester questioned how that worked when there were multiple businesses in a 149 mall, and whether there were restrictions on so many signs per business or how that was 150 monitored. 151 Mr. Paschke advised that the master sign plan didn’t take into account existing signs; but 152 the vision for what the owner wants on their building, with restrictions based on specific 153 zoning district regulations; and negotiations between staff and the property owner on that 154 signage, as well as the type and unique nature of the mall, anchor tenants, and how 155 much lineal footage is allowed for signage based on those many factors going into that 156 consideration. Mr. Paschke noted that may be per tenant and total square feet; broken 157 down by tenants; the amount of square footage being utilized; and how much excess 158 linear space is retained for future tenants; and the property owners lease agreement with 159 individual tenants on new signage. Mr. Paschke advised that this process was working 160 well so far for multi-tenant buildings; however, some concerns have been raised on the 161 lack of clarification in the process itself. Therefore, Mr. Paschke advised that additional 162 clarification for the process had been built into this draft sign ordinance. Mr. Paschke 163 noted that, once they discussed the process and criteria one-on-one with staff, it became 164 clearer and allowed them to provide a proposal based on the base and maximum range 165 allowed under City Code. 166 Section E. Master Sign Process (page 28) 167 Member Boguszewski addressed Section 4 (Appeal) Process for Administrative Hearing; 168 and questioned the phrase “…take public comment…” and if that limited comment to only 169 those receiving notice or affected, or if every master sign plan request was subject to 170 general public comment. Member Boguszewski noted that the phrase didn’t appear 171 elsewhere in the revised sign code, and questioned the intent and whether it would leave 172 the City and Planning Commission open to multiple sign processes annually. 173 Mr. Paschke advised that “public comment” was meant to include the general public, not 174 just those formally noticed by post card, or invited by others having received notice. 175 However, Mr. Paschke noted that staff typically didn’t post it for a public hearing review, 176 since it was an administrative process similar to that used for administrative deviations. 177 Mr. Paschke further noted that it was not uncommon in the administrative approval 178 process for others within the neighborhood or adjacent to a subject parcel attending or 179 seeking additional information from staff. In reality, Mr. Paschke advised that staff was 180 interested in hearing comments, concerns or questions from any member of the public 181 before any final administrative approval. 182 Member Boguszewski questioned if the language opened the City up to subjective 183 criticism that it didn’t not provide due diligence in “taking public comment.” 184 Mr. Paschke opined that it did not, since anyone from inside or outside the City of 185 Roseville could attend a Planning Commission meeting and make public comment, 186 without having received public notice. Mr. Paschke advised that, as a municipality, the 187 City didn’t want to shut its doors to public comment, but preferred to be open and 188 transparent. Mr. Paschke noted that staff always listened, whether or not comments 189 would or could be acted upon. 190 Section 1010.10 Dynamic Displays (Pages 25-26) 191 Member Wozniak questioned, from previous discussions and previous versions of the 192 definition of dynamic displays, whether the City’s sign at the OVAL violated this sign 193 code. 194 Mr. Paschke advised that is does not violate the existing or proposed code. Mr. Paschke 195 noted that the revised language, based on ever-changing technologies, would actually 196 allow greater flexibility for the sign related to frequency of advertisement changes within a 197 24-hour period. 198