pf_02471 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I)Af--f LG Rl~N S tft\Rl)LC)\V AN [) . tJ Bf\N !'C()!lI'()I~:\ !{-I' CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS .Ion FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN :):)40! hI2.B9-BOO t(Ö){PY 16 November 1992 Bob Bell Peterson, Bell, Converse, and Jensen 280·North Snelling Avenue Suite 327 Roseville, MN 55113 RE: Roseville Sign Ordinance Issues Dear Bob: We are writing to ask for clarification and advice on issues related to Roseville's Sign Ordinance, both the current ordinance and the recently approved amendments. The first issue concerns the prohibition of billboards in Roseville ("advertising signs" in the Code), and the recent amendment to the Code prohibiting off-premise directional signs. These issues are touched on in the attached summary of the Burkhardt Advertising v. at] of Auburn case in the APA publication, Land Use Law & Zoning Digest. In light of Burkhardt's First Amendment arguments, can the City continue to prohibit billboards and off-premises signs in the community? The second issue concerns the amortization and eventual removal of existing non-œnforming signage, including billboards as mentioned above, but also large non:.conforming pylon signs. The Planning Commission has expressed a desire to allow amortization of these signs over a certain period, at which time they would need to be removed or brought into compliance with the latest City Code. Please advise us as to how such an amortization provision could be implemented in Roseville. The third issue also involves free speech questions: whether the City can limit the number of American flags displayed by a business. A suggested amendment to the Code (not yet adopted) concerning flags and banners would allow only two flags per business. The summary of another case, Dimmitt v. City of Clearwater, is attached, wherein the District Court ruled that such a limitation was a violation of the First Amendment. Must we remove this restriction altogether, or