My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012-08-07_PR_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Parks & Recreation
>
Parks & Recreation Commission
>
Packets
>
2012
>
2012-08-07_PR_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2012 12:05:12 PM
Creation date
8/14/2012 11:57:59 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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
to execute and process the agreement. <br /> Roll Call <br /> Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and McGehee. <br /> Nays: None. <br /> S. Consider Items Removed from Consent <br /> 12. General Ordinances for Adoption <br /> a. Approve Amendments to Sign Ordinance <br /> City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized the additional <br /> revisions and formatting changes since the City Council's last <br /> review at their May 14, 2012 meeting, as detailed in the Request <br /> for City Council Action (RCA) dated June 18, 2012. <br /> Councilmember Willmus sought input on signs worn by <br /> individuals dressed to advertise specific businesses, particularly <br /> when at intersections, and whether there was any way to <br /> address or dissuade those types of advertisements based on <br /> potential traffic distraction concerns. <br /> Mr. Paschke advised that this ordinance would not address those <br /> types of signage, since they would be covered elsewhere in City <br /> Ordinance (e.g. nuisances) rather than under provisions of this <br /> ordinance. <br /> Councilmember McGehee questioned whether there were time <br /> restrictions for "Homes for Sale" (e.g. the Pulte development <br /> Lake Josephine Woods) and questioned whether that particular <br /> sign was legally correct. <br /> Mr. Paschke advised that the Pulte sign was legally conforming <br /> to City Code; and typically those signs remained until the last lot <br /> was sold and/or construction completed, in an effort to help the <br /> development be successful. <br /> Councilmember McGehee sought the definition of""perpetual <br /> violation;" with Mayor Roe pointing out that the definition, for <br /> the purpose of this Code, was defined in lines 283-384 of the <br /> draft ordinance. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. <br /> Paschke advised that this was indeed a problem experienced in <br /> the community. <br /> Regarding Councilmember McGehee's questions related to <br /> election signs and their timing (page 13), Mr. Paschke advised <br /> that the proposed language for this City Ordinance referenced <br /> and mirrored the language of State Statute. <br /> Mayor Roe noted one additional revision by staff based on <br /> previous discussions with the City Council included page 5, <br /> "General Conditions," (originally page 6, item 8) addressing <br /> ""permitted," versus "prohibited" stricken and moved to Item 2, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.