2012-04-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 4, 2012 Page 2 of consequences of such issues that had been heard by the Commission and 45 subsequently approved by the City Council. Member Gisselquist asked staff of the 46 impacts to the Twin Lakes area; as well as the pending Wal-Mart Site Plan approval by 47 the City Council, based on the Planning Commission’s recommendations. 48 City Planner Paschke advised that the City Council would be briefed in an anticipated 49 Closed Executive Session on Monday, April 9, 2012. Mr. Paschke noted that it was 50 unfortunate that the overlay district issue had been combined with current and pending 51 litigation related to the City’s use of Eminent Domain for a portion of land for right-of-way 52 acquisition by the City and tied to the Xtra Lease site for construction of Twin Lakes 53 Parkway. 54 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Paschke advised that it was unknown at this time 55 whether the Overlay District would make its way back to the Planning Commission, and 56 would depend on the City Council’s action. However, Mr. Paschke advised that, with the 57 ruling in place, it served to make the Overlay District as approved null and void; and there 58 would need to be subsequent action to remove it from City Code. Mr. Paschke advised 59 that it was unclear at this time if that would be a stand-alone City Council action; but 60 noted that the Overlay District language would need to be eliminated from the City’s 61 Zoning Ordinance; and any other items involved in that process and applicable to 62 Planning Commission consideration and recommendation would be provided accordingly. 63 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Paschke advised that this would impact the cost 64 allocations established for the Overlay District, as well as environmental issues 65 addressed in the AUAR. 66 At the request of Councilmember Gisselquist, Mr. Paschke advised that the Judge’s 67 ruling would impact the Wal-Mart development to some degree. However, he advised 68 that staff and the developer would continue to work through and negotiate a Development 69 Agreement and Public Improvement Contract; but was not currently sure of the related 70 impacts for that process. 71 Chair Boerigter noted that the Wal-Mart Site Plan was currently scheduled for the April 72 23, 2012 City Council meeting. 73 6. Public Hearing 74 PROJECT FILE 0013 75 Consideration of Comprehensive Amendments to most sections of Chapter 1010 (Sign 76 Regulations) of the Roseville City Code 77 Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing at approximately 6:41 p.m. 78 City Planner Paschke reviewed the redlined copy and reformatting, as well as the proposed final 79 formatting, with the new Purpose and Findings (Section 1010.01); all as detailed in the Request 80 for Planning Commission Action dated April 4, 2012. 81 Member Strohmeier questioned if there was anything in the revised version that addressed 82 signage, such as speed wagons. 83 Mr. Paschke advised that the sign ordinance did not address those types of signs, as they were 84 considered “public” versus “private” signs; and this ordinance wasn’t intended as an enforcement 85 mechanism for right-of-way signs, but only referenced in the code. Mr. Paschke advised that the 86 sign ordinance did not speak to “prohibited” signs either that may be placed in a right-of-way, 87 since those signs and their placement were regulated and enforced by different divisions of the 88 City than the Community Development Department, namely the Police and/or Public Works 89 Departments. 90 Chair Boerigter expressed his confusion on how residential signs were regulated; or if they were 91 exempted from the sign permit process (e.g. celebratory signs for graduations or other special 92 events in a private residential yard). 93