Laserfiche WebLink
<br />sign Ordinance Discussion 12/9/92 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />percentage is acceptable, but the extreme case of glass buildings <br />was not considered. <br /> <br />The attached drawings show this 25% rule in practice (25% Rule, No <br />Limit) in three examples, assuming 10% standard wall signage: a <br />building with very little windows, a building with a modest amount <br />of windows, and a building facade almost entirely composed of <br />glass. Clearly, the bottom drawing would not be an acceptable <br />situation. <br /> <br />The next drawing (25% Rule, Limited to Half) illustrates an option <br />to the unlimited 25% rule: allowing window signage to be 25% of <br />the window area, but only up to an area equal to half the <br />allowable wall signage for the building. This would place a <br />reasonable cap on the total amount of windów signage, but would <br />still allow a building to have its maximum allowable wall signage <br />plus some window signage. It would also discourage large amounts <br />of window signage in lieu of wall signage, since window signage <br />would be limited to half the wall signage allowance. This would <br />encourage putting at least some of a building's allowable signage <br />in wall signage, which would be more permanent and probably more <br />attractive than temporary window signage, which typically are made <br />of paper or thin plastic. Ordinance language to implement this <br />idea might be as follows: <br /> <br />14.190. <br /> <br />window Siqns. <br /> <br />Signs placed inside a building for the purpose of viewing <br />from the exterior of less than 36 inches from a window area <br />shall not occupy more than 25% or the window area from which <br />they are viewed, nor more than one half the area allowed by <br />this Code for wall signage on the building facade, and shall <br />not block the visibility into the building from a public <br />street to the clerk or cashier's area. <br /> <br />Leqa1 Issues. Finally, we have attached a copy of our recent <br />letter to city Attorney Bob Bell aSking for clarification on <br />certain issues related to Roseville's sign Ordinance. As noted in <br />the letter, some recent court cases have raised questions about <br />billboards, removal of non-conforming signs, and the display of <br />flags. Summaries of the court cases are attached to the letter. We <br />hope to have Attorney Bell's comments in time for the meeting. <br />