CCP 01272025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment 4 Member Paschke explained his only comment was that the code currently allows that amount of light to be emitted from Dynamic displays throughout the City of Roseville, so what they're putting in wasn't anymore, per se, than what's already out there and wasallowed by the code. Mr. Paschke indicated he had a comment about E, as the Commission was considering potentially eliminating that last sentence. He asked if that was to clarify that the City might want to make it 35 feet above the sign's grade because 35W was above one of the billboards, and you run into that situation. I think the key was, was that the billboard from where it was today, you're limited to that 35 feet from grade, and that's a lot easier for staff to be able to deal with that versus a road that may fluctuate where you are taking that elevation from so he suggested saying “35 feet above the grade of the existing sign base”. Ms. Gundlach explained that, as written, it might allow a billboard to be taller, especially in an area where the freeway was maybe coming up, but the grade around it was not like a bridge. Member Kruzel indicated she could make a motion to approve this with the changes Mr. Paschke spoke of, striking out the last few words. Chair Pribyl asked if that would eliminate the second sentence on item number four and change the first sentence to end above the grade elevation at the existing sign base. Member Kruzel indicated that was correct. Chair Pribyl indicated a motion was made and asked for a second to the motion. Member Bjorum indicated he would second the motion. MOTION Member Kruzel moved, seconded by Member Bjorum, to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed modified Zoning Code text amendments outlined in Attachment 3 with the proposed changes as discussed. (PF24-016). Ayes: 3 Nays: 2 (McGehee, Aspnes) Member McGehee indicated she was going to list some reasons for her opposition. She explained that the reason for her opposition was that the research she has done in most places, if this was put to the public in terms of billboards, they don't want billboards, period, which was what we already had in our code. Thus, Clear Channel should allow Clear Channel to invest about $100,000 to upgrade these signs, which was purely a business and money-making venture for them, and they will well recoup that because of the marketing that they do. We have no legal obligation to provide this resource avenue for Clear Channel, and Qbhf!9:!pg!363