My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2008_0519
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2008
>
CC_Minutes_2008_0519
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2008 10:18:49 AM
Creation date
6/13/2008 10:18:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/19/2008
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, May 19, 2008 <br />Page 7 <br />Further discussion ensued regarding various zoning districts and areas identified <br />on the staff-prepared map for installation of banners; and staff rationale for their <br />proposed locations(s). <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that she would support the amendment suggested by <br />Councilmember Pust, provided that the language was clear that banners would not <br />be located in residential areas. <br />Councilmember Pust opined that the record was clear enough, as indicated by her <br />suggested amended language. <br />Public Comment <br />John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn commented on removal of the vague language related to "ob- <br />jects" and the addition of the "non-residential" language. <br />Councilmember Pust noted that she had read off the proposed language from the <br />staff memo, rather than draft ordinance, with the intent that the "and/or objects," <br />language be excluded, to address concerns raised by the public and assure them <br />that there would be no consideration of banners in residential areas now or by fu- <br />ture City Council's based on this language. <br />Mayor Klausing questioned if the stipulation that the signs contained information <br />advertising the City itself or City events, may also allow for neighborhoods to ad- <br />vertise neighborhood events and/or activities unique to those neighborhoods if <br />they sought penmission to do so, with the proposed language amendment prevent- <br />ing that type of use. <br />Councilmember Pust opined that citizens had not come forward requesting that <br />type of use; but noted that citizens had come forward expressing a lack of trust <br />and concerns of misuse by the City Council; and her intent was to assure them via <br />this language amendment. <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that she didn't view citizen comments as a lack of <br />trust; but was supporting the motion only due to the amended language. <br />Ayes: Pust; Roe and Ihlan. <br />Nays: Klausing. <br />Motion carried. <br />Roll Call <br />9. General Ordinances for Adoption <br />10. Presentations <br />a. Joint Meeting with the Ethics Commission <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.