2007_0416_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � �� � �} L f� L= L? �� �} �� 5 •' JG i ;' ]� ]� �� �' I i � � �, � i.� �� �, �. � �� �� 2� ��) ' �i 3l x�� �� 3� 3� :�f,� �^ 33 �Y� �tr �, �. �•� �_ �:3 �� �{ r I �y �� Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — Wednesday, February 07,2007 d. PLANNING FI�.� 3628 SIGC� REGULATIONS— Reaffirmation of Commission's supportfor modifications to Section 1009 of the Roseville City Code. Chair �aket�an opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 3628. Mr. Paschke reviewed the background of the proposed comprehensive amendmentto the City's existing sign code; reason for delay of the amendments; and need for new Commissioners and current Commissioners to provide a final review prior to submission to the City Council for their review and action. Mr. Paschke advised that, given the comprehensive nature of the proposed amendments, staff was willing to work with Commissionersoutside meeting time to review the code and answer their questions and address their comments. Mr. Paschke noted that previous Commissioner-suggestedmodifications and previous discussions had been incorporated into this latest document; and further noted that staff was still working on illustrations to include in the Code, in addition to pending review by the City Attorney. Discussion included consideration of increasing arbitration regarding flashing signs and the forethought of previous community leaders in keeping billboards out of the City; the implementation of a Master Sign Plan newly implemented in the proposed amendments; sign consistencies throughout the community; reducing the number of variance requests by allowing staff more flexibility in working with applicationsfro new signs; fee approval by the City Council already in place for Master Sign Plan review; and request of the Commission to review the code again if, follawing review, the City Attorney suggested significant deviations. Additional discussion included flashing signs, theirs advantages and disadvantages; impacts of automatic prohibition of LED signs; impacts of current and future litigation with city code; growing technologies and how ta regulate flashing signs or scrolling signs; and marketing issues for businesses utilizing new technologies MOi"10[� Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Wozniak to RECOMMENDCONTINUING Planning File 3628, Sign Regulations, to the March 2007 meeting. Ayes: 6 Nays: b Motion carried. Staffwas requested to provide Commissionersbefore the March meeting, any additional and pertinent CVlnC�OT research or studies related to safety concerns or data en driver distractionsfrom flashing electronic signs and images. Commissionerswere asked to e-maik or phone staff with any comments or suggestions prior to the March meeting.