2013-03-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 6, 2013 Page 3 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke advised that the “human” signs 97 were not currently covered in the City’s ordinance, even though they could be deemed 98 distracting for vehicles, as they went much broader than the sign code. Mr. Paschke 99 advised that, in 2011 when the sign ordinance was revised and that chapter amended, 100 staff had held discussions with the City Attorney, and those types of signs were a much 101 broader topic for discussion by others beyond a zoning or planning perspective; therefore 102 they had not yet been addressed by code. 103 Public Comment 104 Jim Hartman, Roseville V.F.W. Commander 105 Mr. Hartman addressed specific questions he had and confusion on the regulations for 106 the V.F.W. for permanent and/or temporary signage. Mr. Hartman stated that it was vital 107 that their events be advertized, but expressed his concern that they comply with 108 regulations. Mr. Hartman advised that it had become apparent that the current permanent 109 signage on the property needed to be replaced with more modern technology; however, 110 with that expense, they needed to look for other options, such as an electronic sign for 111 the building, with its size approximately 12’ x 3’. 112 Regarding specifics for the V.F.W., Chair Boerigter suggested that Mr. Hartman consult 113 with staff offline, since this discussion was not an appropriate forum for that discussion. 114 However, Chair Boerigter thanked Mr. Hartman for bringing up the issue, since those 115 types of advertizing were what the City needed to ensure could still happen, whether 116 temporary or the type of allowable sign. Chair Boerigter noted that the V.F.W. and similar 117 organizations needed to be able to advertise their events within the regulations of the 118 City. 119 Mr. Hartman noted the consolidation of a business at the V.F.W. (Carbone’s Pizza), a 120 business move required to help both businesses survive. 121 Mr. Hartman further addressed temporary signage, like those used for periodic Booya’s, 122 including that by the Fire Department, currently using the V.F.W. site during fire station 123 construction. Mr. Hartman sought additional information as to their classification and how 124 to advertise them within City regulations. 125 Mr. Paschke responded that the City sought City Council approval annually for temporary 126 signs to be used at various event held on City-owned properties (parks, facilities, City 127 Hall campus, etc.), a distinct and separate approval process beyond City Code. At the 128 request of Chair Boerigter regarding the Fire Department’s Booya and signage, Mr. 129 Paschke advised that he was not directly involved in that approval process, but he 130 recalled that it was a typical A-frame sign made out of wood, similar to that used by the 131 annual craft fair held at the Roseville Skating Center. Without reviewing them further, Mr. 132 Paschke admitted that some may meet the temporary sign requirements of City Code, 133 while some may not. 134 In response to Mr. Hartman’s concerns about signage at the V.F.W., without having 135 additional information available at this time, Mr. Paschke advised that the signage 136 allowed on the building would be based on its total square footage. 137 Further discussions specific to the V.F.W. signage for clarification included temporary 138 permits and sign requirements based on a number of events held annually, with Mr. 139 Hartman seeking some leeway for some of those events based on other circumstances 140 and/or weather. 141 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Paschke advised that dates/events are now 142 listed on the permit and monitored, once permitted, from staff’s database, and while 143 sometimes the twenty (20) day permit had created some issues, typically a sixty (60) day 144 permit found no issues. 145 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Paschke advised that a date could be 146 amended on the original permit, upon notification to staff, rather than requiring an entirely 147 new permit. Mr. Paschke assured members that the intent was not to be strict in what 148