My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0424_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0424_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 9:17:21 AM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:33:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
261
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
City Council Study Session — 04117106 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 12 <br />clarifications and illustrations proposed for the new document. <br />Mr. Paschke noted that such modifications should assist with <br />language, interpretation and implementation among staff and the <br />public in clarifying areas currently ambiguous. <br />Mr. Paschke further noted that the Commission was focusing on <br />creative signage through a Master Sign Plan and creating an <br />understandable chart to provide individuals with specifics of <br />type, placement, size and maximum height for signage. <br />Councilmernber Pust likened the new sign regulations as the <br />Planned Unit Development (PUD) for signs, to look at signage as <br />a whole for structures, and not the current piecemeal permitting. <br />Councilmember Pust noted that the City of Woodbury's master <br />sign plan had been used as a starting point and such <br />modifications should save considerable staff time in defining and <br />interpreting code for clients. <br />Councilmernber Ihlan opined that her concern was from a public <br />interest standpoint, that sign size limits were not being relaxed <br />and to ensure that views weren't blocked or drivers distracted by <br />signage and that amendments would make signs fit in with <br />neighborhoods, with clear rules to limit that and with staff not <br />making decisions for which the City Council should be <br />responsible. <br />Mr. Paschke noted that on May 3, 2006 the Planning <br />Commission would receive the final draft document for <br />discussion and support and anticipate submission to the City <br />Council at the May 22, 2006 meeting for consideration for <br />adoption. <br />7. Adj ourn Adj ourn <br />The meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.