CC_Minutes_2012_0514 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Workspace Webmail ::Print http://email 14.secureserver.net/view_Print multi.php?uidArray2244... 2re k Lcc..+ Sh //�-- Print I Close Window Subject: Sign Regulation Questions From: Thomas Paschke<thomas.paschke @ci.roseville.mn.us> Date: Mon,May 14,2012 11:58 am To: *RVCouncil<city.council @ci.roseville.mn.us> Council Members; The following is my response to Mayor Roe's questions regarding the proposed Sign Regulations amendment to be discussed this evening. Under 1010.01 Purpose and Findings, paragraph A.6, I am not sure what it means to "give preference to the on-premise owner or occupant." My take on the question- I believe the answer is predicated on the notion that the Sign Regulations chapter of the City Code is looking out for these owners/occupants and providing allowances for them to have signage which is very important to their existence. Like most codes, signs can be regulated as a city sees fit, so conversely the code in Roseville could be very restrictive and not providing signage preferences to business owners, renters and/or proprietors of buildings. Under 1010.02 Definitions, paragraph A.10, I would suggest changing "Flags" to "Flag." (A minor grammatical point - the definition is singular, so the word defined should also be.) YES Under 1010.02 Definitions, paragraph A.25, the date probably needs updating to conform to the date in 1010.03 D. [Looks like it was on the "clean" draft - except there it is listed as April 23, 2012, on lines 129 and 2021 YES—would be date of adoption Under 1010.02 Definitions, paragraph A.30, would it be better to say "single or multiple poles" rather than just "single or double pole," since a support could consist of 3 poles or more in some cases? YES Under 1010.03 General Provisions, paragraph C.8, wouldn't the permitted signs listed in the second paragraph actually fit better under paragraph B (exempted signs)? (Or under under 1010.09 (Other Signs), or elsewhere?) It would seem to me that only prohibited signs should be listed under that heading, in order to avoid confusion. This requirement/exemption could be located in either subsection. Likewise, I wonder about listing the limit on the projection of projecting signs under "Prohibited Signs" in 1010.03, paragraph C.5. (Is there a more appropriate place to address that, such as perhaps a unique lettered paragraph under 1010.03, rather than a number under paragraph C?) Perhaps YES—under 1010.05 on-Premise Signs since the projection of a sign is from a building wall. 1 of 3 5/14/2012 4:58 PM