My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CCP 01272025
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2025
>
CCP 01272025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2025 12:22:08 PM
Creation date
1/29/2025 12:21:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
1/27/2025
Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
252
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
<br />91 <br />92 Commission members engaged in a conversation regarding light impacts and whether externally lit static <br />93 billboards were more or less disruptive than dynamic billboards, which are internally lit, wondering if any <br />94 formal studies examined this issue. Staff and the applicant answered questions regarding the difference <br />95 between foot-candle and nit light/illumination measurements but stated unawareness of such studies or <br />96 if they were even possible or practical. <br />97 <br />98 In an effort to address the Planning Commission’s concerns about lighting impacts, the applicant has <br />99 provided additional information to help illustrate the impacts of a lit static billboard compared to a <br />100 dynamic display billboard. Those materials are provided as Attachment 5. Clear Channel's original <br />101 application materials are provided as Attachment 7. <br />102 <br />103 Beyond light/illumination concerns, the Commission discussed the height requirements and suggested a <br />104 rewording to ensure the 35-foot height standard was measured at grade and that there was no ability to <br />105 increase the height above 35 feet. City Planner Paschke suggested a language revision, which the <br />106 Commission accepted and was included in the eventual motion. That language in reflected in this staff <br />107 report and the attached draft ordinance being considered. <br />108 <br />109 The Planning Commission voted 3-2 (Commissioners Bjorum, Kruzel, and Chair Pribyl voting in favor <br />110 and Commissioners McGehee and Aspnes voting against) to recommend the City Council approve the <br />111 zoning code text amendments to §1010.02 Definitions, §1010.03.C Prohibited Signs, §1010.03.D Non- <br />112 Conforming Signs, and §1010.10 Dynamic Displays as outlined in the Ordinance, including the amended <br />113 language concerning height. <br />114 <br />115 Requested Council Action <br />116 By motion, adopt the ordinance provided as Attachment 6, amending City Code §1010.02 <br />117 Definitions, §1010.03.C Prohibited Signs, §1010.03.D Non-Conforming Signs, and §1010.10 Dynamic <br />118 Displays. <br />119 <br />120 <br />Thomas Paschke, City Planner <br />Prepared by: <br />1. November 6 PC meeting minutes <br />Attachments: <br />2. November 25 CC meeting minutes <br />3. Dynamic billboard standards examples <br />4. Draft January 8 PC meeting minutes <br />5. Supplemental CCO Materials <br />6. Proposed Ordinance <br />7. Original CCO Application Materials <br />121 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />Qbhf!7:!pg!363 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.