pm_050708 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 07, 2008 Page 10 Commissioner Doherty withdrew his motion After further discussion, , and staff was requested to provide additional information as discussed. MOTION Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Gottfried to CONTINUE to the next Planning Commission meeting consideration of the proposed amendments to Roseville City Code, Section 1011, pending staff clarification as discussed and pertaining to the following: ? Staff clarification that proposed language modifications apply only to residential properties; ? Staff clarification that language modifications include those properties platted prior to 1959, recently identified in the overlay district ? Staff clarification on how this relates to the B-6 Mixed Use District (Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area) Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. d. Project File 0013 Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Roseville City Code, Section 1009 (Sign Regulations) to allow signs to be affixed to city-owned light poles. Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Project File 0013. City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed staff’s analysis of this request for considering an amendment to City Code, Chapter 1009 (Sign Regulations) specifically pertaining to signs affixed to city-owned light poles. Mr. Paschke advised that the request was prompted by the Roseville Visitor’s Association’s request to city representatives for placing welcome/event signs on city-owned light poles, with the Public Works Director and Planning Department staff working with the City Attorney on the language amendment, at the direction of the City Council. Mr. Paschke advised that Chapter 1009 does not address the sign sought by the Visitor’s Association, thus the City Attorney had suggested the following language to be placed within Section 1009.03(B), specific for such signage and creating a number 14: “Signs which are affixed to city-owned light poles or standards which contain information advertising the City itself or City events, provided the signs have been approved by the City Council and City Public Works Director or the Director’s designee.” Staff recommended approval of the proposed text amendment as submitted by the City Attorney; pending further language refinement to allow “objects,” rather than standards. Discussion included considerations for traffic visibility and height of signs, with the Public Works Director having approval rights and discretion, taking into consideration the best interest of the public; clarification that a sight triangle refers only to objects on private property impeding visibility near intersections; and definition of “banner” and/or “sign.” Commissioner Boerigter questioned why, if the City Council retains the right for approval of each instance, there was need to limit the signs to information advertising the City itself or City events, or by adding another level of in the approval process. Mr. Paschke advised that he would further research that question. Additional discussion included clarification of the sequence of approval by the Public Works Director or City Council, language revision to include “objects,” and whether to consider limiting the number to be put up. Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing with no one appearing to speak.