CC_Minutes_2008_0519 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 19, 2008 Page 6 City Attorney Jay Squires concurred, noting that when the City has interest in a right-of--way, it is for that purpose, and not defeasable; and that only if the City actually owned the right-of--way it may present a different situation. Councilmember Ihlan suggested that this issue be flagged for future discussion when considering fee structures; to seek compensation for right-of--way vacations. Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10627 entitled, "A Reso- lution Vacating an Undeveloped Portion of Walnut Street Right-of--Way Crossing Property addressed as 2001 Fulham Street (PF08-009);" based on staff analysis, comments, and recommendations in Sections 5 and 6, and subject to conditions as detailed in Section 7 of the project report dated May 19, 2008. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan and Klausing. Nays: None. b. Enact an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1009, Sign Regulations, pertaining to signs that are affixed to City-owned Light Poles (PRJ0013) (Former Con- sent Agenda Item 7.d) Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon summarized the staff report and requested action. Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1367 entitled, "An Or- dinance Amending Roseville City Code, Section 1009.03(B), Sign Permits/Not Required;" approving a text amendment, Number 14, amended to read as fol- lows: "Signs which are affixed to City-owned light poles or standards which contain in- formation advertising the City itself or City events, provided the signs [are lo- cated in non-residential areas and] have been approved by the City Council and City Public Works Director or the Director's designee." Councilmember Ihlan offered a friendly amendment to clarify residential "zones," rather than "areas." Discussion ensued on the areas impacted; specific zoning in those areas; areas where both residential and institutional zoning may be present on the same street (along County Road C); and zoning of the City Campus as "institutional." Councilmember Pust opined that she preferred that the language remain residen- tial "areas;" and that a determination could be made on a case by case basis as re- quests came forward; and therefore, advised that she would not accept the friendly amendment suggested by Councilmember Ihlan.