My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_070207
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
pm_070207
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:40:29 PM
Creation date
5/8/2007 10:30:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/7/2007
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, February 07, 2007 <br />Page 11 <br /> <br />Ayes: 6 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br />d. PLANNING FILE 3628 <br />SIGN REGULATIONS – Reaffirmation of Commission’s support for <br />modifications to Section 1009 of the Roseville City Code. <br /> <br />Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 3628. <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke reviewed the background of the proposed comprehensive amendment to <br />the City’s existing sign code; reason for delay of the amendments; and need for new <br />Commissioners and current Commissioners to provide a final review prior to <br />submission to the City Council for their review and action. Mr. Paschke advised that, <br />given the comprehensive nature of the proposed amendments, staff was willing to <br />work with Commissioners outside meeting time to review the code and answer their <br />questions and address their comments. Mr. Paschke noted that previous <br />Commissioner-suggested modifications and previous discussions had been <br />incorporated into this latest document; and further noted that staff was still working on <br />illustrations to include in the Code, in addition to pending review by the City Attorney. <br /> <br />Discussion included consideration of increasing arbitration regarding flashing signs <br />and the forethought of previous community leaders in keeping billboards out of the <br />City; the implementation of a Master Sign Plan newly implemented in the proposed <br />amendments; sign consistencies throughout the community; reducing the number of <br />variance requests by allowing staff more flexibility in working with applications fro new <br />signs; fee approval by the City Council already in place for Master Sign Plan review; <br />and request of the Commission to review the code again if, following review, the City <br />Attorney suggested significant deviations. <br /> <br />Additional discussion included flashing signs, theirs advantages and disadvantages; <br />impacts of automatic prohibition of LED signs; impacts of current and future litigation <br />with city code; growing technologies and how to regulate flashing signs or scrolling <br />signs; and marketing issues for businesses utilizing new technologies <br /> <br /> MOTION <br />Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Wozniak to RECOMMEND CONTINUING <br />Planning File 3628, Sign Regulations, to the March 2007 meeting. <br /> <br />Ayes: 6 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br />Staff was requested to provide Commissioners before the March meeting, any <br />additional and pertinent MnDOT research or studies related to safety concerns or data <br />on driver distractions from flashing electronic signs and images. Commissioners were <br />asked to e-mail or phone staff with any comments or suggestions prior to the March <br />meeting. <br /> <br />e. PLANNING FILE 3692 <br />Continuation of the Roseville Comprehensive Plan Update Process – Review of <br />technical update schedule with various City Commissions <br /> <br />Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 3692. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.