My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0509
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0509
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/27/2016 9:09:00 AM
Creation date
5/24/2016 2:55:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/9/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
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, May 9, 2016 <br />Page 13 <br />Nays: None. <br />Willmus moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1499 <br />(Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville <br />City Code, Sections 307.01 (Licenses Required), 307.02 (License Fee), 307.03 <br />(Commercial General Contractors), 307.04 (Qualifications), 307.05 (Revocation <br />or Suspension), 307.06 (Period of Suspension), 307.07 (Revocation Upon Viola- <br />tions), 307.08 (Failure to Pay Claim), and 307.09 (Liability Insurance) <br />Roll Call (Super Majority) <br />Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. <br />Nays: None. <br />c. Request by Community Development Department to Amend the Text of Zon- <br />ing Code, Section 1010.09.A.6.a (Pertaining to Political Signs) <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA <br />and related attachments, May 9, 2016. <br />Mayor Roe noted these changes had already been incorporated into state law, and <br />this requested action simply revised city code to mirror that language. <br />Councilmember McGehee questioned the need for this action, suggesting it would <br />be simpler and easier to understand with a date rather than a candidate having to <br />calculate 46 days as proposed. <br />Councilmember Willmus opined that if you're running for elective office, you <br />should be able to perform that calculation. <br />Mayor Roe noted that the state statute dictated the timeframe, and suggested that <br />it was likely that the City could not deviate from the State statute requirements in <br />this case. <br />City Attorney Gaughan stated that he'd want to review the actual state statute <br />wording, but opined he would anticipate it would be inappropriate for the city <br />code to be more restrictive with city sign code than that provided by the state. <br />McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1500 (Attach- <br />ment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Roseville City Code, Chapter 10 <br />(Sign Regulations)." <br />Mayor Roe noted that it was always up to individual candidates when they decid- <br />ed to display their signs, but this provided the window for them to make those <br />choices. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.