pm_020501 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Cunningham asked for details of the pillar materials (sand blasted wood). Member Wilke asked if this would affect expansion of the Lexington Avenue right-of-way? (No). Member Mulder noted that if something did happen that required moving the sign, could a condition be added that it would be done at no cost to the public. Joel Jamnik, City Attorney, recommended not placing time and right-of-way conditions in the variance. Deb Bloom, Assistant to Public Works Director, noted that the Lexington Avenue bridge will be rebuilt in 2005 and no additional right-of-way will be required for this project. Brent Thompson, owner, asked if the sign could be moved north or south in location on the site plan (to be approved in the sign permit, but the sign cannot be in the site triangle). No public comment was offered. Chair Duncan closed the hearing. Motion: Member Traynor moved, seconded by Member Olson, to recommend approval of the request by Mr. Brent Thompson for a 14-foot variance allowing the installation of a ground (monument) sign one foot from (east) of the property line adjacent to Lexington Avenue, subject to the conditions indicated in Section 6 of the project report dated May 1, 2002. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 c. Planning File 3394: A request by the City of Roseville to amend the City Code, Chapter 10, Section 1005 and Section 1002, by adding regulations to sexually oriented business uses and adding Section 1017. Chair Duncan opened the hearing and requested Andrea McDowell Poehler, Attorney, Campbell Knutson to provide a summary of the project report dated May 1, 2002. Adrea McDowell Poehler explained the proposed zoning ordinance Supreme Court so that the City 1) must have government purpose to regulate secondary effects; 2) reasonable alternatives for use, including at least 5% of the land area must be identified where such a use could be established. The negative secondary effects as shown in the findings resolution were described; the Planning Commission resolution should establish the findings for Roseville and may use experience and records from other communities Andrea McDowell Poehler explained the setback in the proposed ordinance of 1 ,320 feet setback from "R" and "B-1" zones. Currently the City of Roseville does not have any Code regulations relating to sexually oriented business uses in the City, other than through minimal regulation in the licensing of liquor. The City Attorney and Staff recommended that the Planning Commission and Council: 1) study the facts and adopt a resolution of findings of fact, and 2) adopt an ordinance for the purpose of defining the use and regulating the location of sexually oriented businesses in "B" and "I" zones. Separation (1,320 feet) from any residential zone or "B-1" zone (which may include residential units) would be required. Member Olson explained that she is opposed to allowing a business shown to attract crime (negative secondary affects) to occupy parcels in 8% of the community land. (Joel Jamnik explained First Amendment rights are guaranteed for these activities. The City is attempting to achieve a balance with respect to the First Amendment). Member Traynor commented that there are no churches, schools or other such uses in the mapped area (as shown in the map dated May 1,2002). Member Olson asked that the list of similar uses include civic buildings, city hall and parks. She asked if conditional use permits could be used to improve on-site improvements such as lighting and screening. Andrea McDowell Poehler recommended against additional conditions because of Supreme Court directions. Joel Jamnik explained that conditional use permits could undercut the ordinance. Member Olson asked if recreation buildings or civic buildings would be properly protected.