Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning CommissionMeeting <br />Minutes –Wednesday, May 4, 2016 <br />Page 7 <br />Boguszewski opined that within the philosophy of government, the human element <br />304 <br />couldn’t be completely removed; and spoke in support of the motion. <br />305 <br />Member Murphy expressed his appreciation of the concerns expressed by Member Bull; <br />306 <br />but spoke in support of the motion, based on lines 137-141 specifically.While it may take <br />307 <br />a few words to accomplish that goal, Member Murphy opined that the language did <br />308 <br />support the overall goals. <br />309 <br />Member Cunningham echoed her colleagues, and while not liking ambiguous language, <br />310 <br />agreed that these revisions created opportunities for applicants; and opined it would <br />311 <br />benefit the city in the long run. <br />312 <br />Member Bull stated that what made this plausible for him was the comments made by Mr. <br />313 <br />Lloyd in an applicant’s ability to go beyond city staff for subsequent discussions by the <br />314 <br />Planning Commission and City Council; and therefore he would support the motion. <br />315 <br />Ayes: 7 <br />316 <br />Nays: 0 <br />317 <br />Motion carried <br />318 <br />b.PROJECT FILE 0013 <br />319 <br />Request by the City of Roseville to amend language in City Code, Section <br />320 <br />1010.09.A.6 (Political Signs) to be consistentwith State Statutes. <br />321 <br />C <br />hair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PROJECT FILE 0013 at 7:37 p.m. <br />322 <br />City Planner Thomas Paschkereviewed the request as detailed in the staff report and <br />323 <br />attachments dated May 4, 2016 and rationale for suggested changes. <br />324 <br />Chair Boguszewski suggested simply specifying city code language in accordance with <br />325 <br />governing Minnesota State Statutes. <br />326 <br />Mr. Paschke recognized that this could be done, but noted that everyone would then <br />327 <br />need to refer to those statutory requirements that could prove more difficult to access.Mr. <br />328 <br />Paschke noted that cities typically modified their codes when state statute changed and <br />329 <br />amended their codes accordingly.However, Mr. Paschke opined that having the specific <br />330 <br />language in city code was better. <br />331 <br />As noted by Chair Boguszewski, if he had been running for office and referenced city <br />332 <br />code prior to this revision, he would have been out of compliance with state statute and <br />333 <br />under any resulting ramifications; with Mr. Paschke stated that would have been correct. <br />334 <br />Member Boguszewski respectfully disagreed with the suggestion of Chair Boguszewski <br />335 <br />that the city code reference state statute, opining that this was a service the city provided; <br />336 <br />and expressed her advocacy in saving steps for citizens. <br />337 <br />Mr. Paschke reported that when people had questions or comments on political signs, <br />338 <br />they didn’t seek out state statute, but seemed to have a direct dial to his phone number <br />339 <br />or that of other city staff to gain that information.Therefore, Mr. Paschke expressed his <br />340 <br />and city staff’s preference that the language be in city code for candidates and general <br />341 <br />citizens. <br />342 <br />At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke reported that staff received numerous and <br />343 <br />various complaints about political signs. <br />344 <br />Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m.;no one spokefor or against. <br />345 <br />MOTION <br />346 <br />Member Daire moved, seconded by Member Gitzento recommend to the City <br />347 <br />Council APPROVAL of the proposed TEXT AMENDMENT (Political Signs) to <br />348 <br />Roseville City Code, Section 1010.09.A.6, based on the comments and findings of <br />349 <br />the staff report dated May 4, 2016. <br />350 <br /> <br />