2013-03-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 6, 2013 Page 2 staff’s review that no gas stations had been constructed in Roseville since the Hamline 45 Avenue SuperAmerica in 2003 or 2004 under a Planned Unit Development (PUD); 46 existing non-conformities allowed to remain in most cases as dictated by code and State 47 law; and a number of existing stations rebranding or swapping signs out at the same 48 square footage. 49 Staff advised that the main area of concern for this proposed text amendment was to 50 address future development or redevelopment situations and current ambiguities and 51 limits in current code, suggesting a separation of canopy and building signage. 52 At the request of Member Boerigter, Mr. Paschke advised that there was a limited area 53 for canopy signs and they were therefore fairly restrictive by nature and in the industry 54 other than for logos; with staff’s intent to allow flexibility in marketing a business while still 55 ensuring some legitimate restrictions. 56 Temporary Signs 57 Mr. Paschke advised that, since implementing the revised sign ordinance, concerns with 58 application had arisen from staff as well as owners. Mr. Paschke noted that intent was to 59 make temporary signs more flexible, but with staff now able to more proactively monitor 60 and enforce that signage, based on issuing permits in accordance with that code, there 61 had been a whole area of issues indicating a need for creating another sign category that 62 would allow more flexibility beyond a time limit of sixty (60) days. 63 Mr. Paschke advised that the proposal was to create an annual sign permit with certain 64 restrictions, applicable fees allowing staff monitoring, but more flexible for use throughout 65 the year for businesses advertising, and similar to a well-manufactures A-frame sign with 66 a face that it changeable and daily placement/removal, with a different fabrication but 67 also allowing for more permanent messages as applicable. Mr. Paschke advised that this 68 would allow business owners more flexibility to market their businesses, since many retail 69 strip malls were older and had strict limitations on what could or could not be put on free- 70 standing signs. Mr. Paschke advised that this would be a way for staff to provide a 71 greater opportunity for those small business owners, while still allowing for some 72 regulation through permits and other limitations stipulated in code. 73 Discussion included how to define “flag signs,” with staff defining them as temporary 74 signs, how and if they were allowed as temporary signs for up to sixty (60) days, and 75 recognizing that many were not in compliance, and had not been permitted and were 76 therefore prohibited; and staff’s advising that they were using the enforcement rules 77 available to them with a letter sent to offenders seeking their compliance. 78 Further discussion included differences of signs; whether to prohibit flag signs in the 79 community or regulate them through a permit fee and enforcement mechanism. 80 Mr. Paschke advised that the rationale goes back a number of years, when the City of 81 Roseville made a conscious decision to reduce signage, mostly temporary, by prohibiting 82 banners or strictly regulating them; with current code still in place for those types of signs. 83 However, Mr. Paschke opined that there needed to be some flexibility built in, since 84 portions of that ordinance put in place in the 2000’s had been interpreted differently by 85 different members of staff, causing the current code’s creation for staff to provide that 86 flexibility, within certain time restrictions. Mr. Paschke recognized concerns expressed 87 with the flag signs; and suggested if those types of signs were not wanted in Roseville, 88 that they regulate them out and prohibit them; or consider them as a type of sign that 89 would only be allowed for up to sixty (60) days to avoid them becoming long-term or 90 having an excess of them. Mr. Paschke noted this was similar to attempts to control 91 boulevard signs frequently used. 92 Chair Boerigter opined that it made some sense, if you looked around Roseville, you 93 were sure to observe some of those signs, but other communities had many more, 94 including banners, balloons, menu or A-frame signs. Depending on where flag signs fell, 95 Chair Boerigter suggested that maybe they not be allowed. 96