My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0618
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0618
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/18/2012 1:59:33 PM
Creation date
7/18/2012 1:59:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/18/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,June 18, 2012 <br /> Page 5 <br /> Mayor Roe noted that the drainage problems in this area had been brought to <br /> the City's attention by residents, and expressed his appreciation that a solution <br /> was being pursued, even if it was unfortunately a bit late in light of last year's <br /> major rain event. <br /> e. Approve Cobalt Settlement <br /> Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approve the Cobalt REIT II, et al Settle- <br /> ment Agreement (Exhibit B) as presented; amended by City Attorney Gaughan <br /> to authorize the City Attorney's Office to execute and process the agreement. <br /> Roll Call <br /> Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and McGehee. <br /> Nays: None. <br /> 8. Consider Items Removed from Consent <br /> 9. General Ordinances for Adoption <br /> a. Approve Amendments to Sign Ordinance <br /> City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized the additional revisions and <br /> formatting changes since the City Council's last review at their May 14, 2012 <br /> meeting, as detailed in the Request for City Council Action (RCA) dated June <br /> 18, 2012. <br /> Councilmember Willmus sought input on signs worn by individuals dressed to <br /> advertise specific businesses, particularly when at intersections, and whether <br /> there was any way to address or dissuade those types of advertisements based <br /> on potential traffic distraction concerns. <br /> Mr. Paschke advised that this ordinance would not address those types of sign- <br /> age, since they would be covered elsewhere in City Ordinance (e.g. nuisances) <br /> rather than under provisions of this ordinance. <br /> Councilmember McGehee questioned whether there were time restrictions for <br /> "Homes for Sale" (e.g. the Pulte development Lake Josephine Woods) and <br /> questioned whether that particular sign was legally correct. <br /> Mr. Paschke advised that the Pulte sign was legally conforming to City Code; <br /> and typically those signs remained until the last lot was sold and/or construction <br /> completed, in an effort to help the development be successful. <br /> Councilmember McGehee sought the definition of "perpetual violation;" with <br /> Mayor Roe pointing out that the definition, for the purpose of this Code, was <br /> defined in lines 283-384 of the draft ordinance. At the request of Councilmem- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.