pm_070208 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 02, 2008 Page 7 inadequacies with the various sections as noted, specifically detailed in Section 4 of the staff report. Mr. Paschke further reviewed proposed amendment to those occurrences where permits were not required, and amendments to Chapter 1010.03B11c (real estate signs; business and industrial); and Chapter 1010.03D (Master Sign Plan), subsection 5 (approval process) provisions. Staff recommended APPROVAL of the proposed amendments to Section 1010 (Sign Regulations) of Roseville City Code, as detailed in the staff report dated July 2, 2008. Discussion included type of construction materials and definition of temporary signs; number of days allotted for signs; new permits for each event and associated fees; problems with habitual offenders and subsequent penalties and fewer habitual offenders since the new code has been implemented; education and public information; and lack of staff for signage monitoring, enforcement, and offenders. Further discussion included multiple events and whether separate permits were required; and the need to further refine and clarify that language to avoid confusion; separation of signage square footages for type of sign (i.e., building versus freestanding signs); need for clarification of existing or potential mounted signs and their signs for multi-tenant buildings; current legal, non-conforming signage; situations requiring a Master Sign Plan process, and staff’s goal to not have “for lease” signage on buildings at all, but to incorporate it into freestanding signage; numbering of the four (4) examples and each of their definitions to avoid confusion; and revising all signage to thirty-two (32) square feet for consistency. Further discussion included the need for more flexibility on materials for signage (i.e., durable, all-weather materials including but not limited to plywood). Additional discussion included providing opportunity for engineering and other departments to participate in sign decision-making, without the need for the full Design Review Committee (DRC) as a whole for each sign decision; discretion of the Community Development Director for the extent of staff review and commended needed on a case by case basis; and the need for staff to review City Code language on Section 6.3 of the staff report (Chapter 1010.03D – Master Sign Plan Approval Process) for language consistency and potential change of the first sentence from, “Should the applicant “of” or “or” a contiguous property owner object…” Concluding discussion included the four (4) separate areas defined; more consideration to business/industrial signage; signage duration language; more flexibility of mediums used for signage materials without overt limitations for viable materials at the discretion of the Community Development Director; and recognizing staff members needing involvement in the review process, based on the discretion of the Community Development Director. Further discussion included language related to balloons or searchlights, lasers, or similar attention-getting devices, and whether they were intended as examples or types and their definition as temporary signs; and the need for staff to revise language to add duration (12 days). Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing to speak. MOTION Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Doherty to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendments to Section 1010 (Sign Regulations) of Roseville City Code, as detailed in the staff report dated July 2, 2008; amended to clarify or review language in various sections as follows: Multiple events and whether separate permits were required; and the need to ? further refine and clarify that language to avoid confusion;separation of signage square footages for type of sign (i.e., building versus freestanding signs); Page 7 of 9