pm_950614 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

There was no public comment. Chairman Keith Wietecki closed the public hearing. MOTION: Chairman Wietecki moved, seconded by Member Thein, to recommend approval of the Sign Code Amendments as illustrated in the staff handout with the Planning Commission recommended changed language as listed below: Section 1009.03A9 which reads "Displays or features on any landscaped area except light poles." In this Section, the Planning Commission recommended "excepting the use of live vegetation" . In Section 1009.03 of the Amendment, Paragraph M, Page 6, the Planning Commission recommended adding the following language "WINDOW SIGNS: signs affixed to, or painted on, windows or placed within 36 inches. . . ." ROLL CALL: Ayes: Wietecki, Harms, Wall, Rengel, Rhody, Thein Nays: None 6. (g) Public Hearing on an Amendment to the City of RosevilleCode Title IV. Chapter 407 regarding Nuisances: repealing certain provisions and redesignating others. Chairman Keith Wietecki opened the public hearing and requested Michael Falk to provide a background report. He noted that changes proposed in the Roseville City Code were requested by the City Council, and involved stronger, more complete definitions of nuisance, including new provisions for building maintenance and appearance controls, a better definition of "junk" and inoperable vehicles, and provisions for reimbursement of city costs associated with vehicle abatement. He explained that the proposed ordinance to amend the code within the Planning Commission packet was drafted by the City's legal council and addresses the concerns raised by the City Council. He also explained that background information about housing preservation in the City of Roseville and information for other communities for comparison purposes. Mr. Falk recommended approval of an Ordinance amending Title IV, Chapter 407 of the City Code of the City of Roseville by defining nuisances, repealing certain provisions, and redesignating others. Chairman Wietecki asked how many cities have done this in the past and expressed concern with Section L in which provision of the Code would not allow for evening emergency response vehicles to be taken home by an owner or employee of a business. He noted that larger vehicles should be prohibited and specified by weight, and the language should be clarified. He also requested the staff to modify Subdivision 5F to correct the language, and requested the staff to clarify language in Section M3a regarding "vehicles being parked on hard surfaces." Member Wall asked that Subdivision 4, Page 2 be clarified regarding vehicles parked on private property and the permission necessary to be parked there. A general discussion ensued regarding design standards. Chairman Keith Wietecki asked for public comment. There was none. Chairman Wietecki closed the public hearing. 9