pf_02477 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MEMORANDUM DATE: 2 December 1991 TO: FROM: Roseville City Council and Planning Commission John Shardlow; DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC. RE: Sign Ordinance Discussion We have discussed various aspects of the sign ordinance in recent months and have gathered a good deal of information for your consideration in recent planning reports. From these discussions, we have understood that the issue of signage is an important one in the community, but it is an issue that needs to be further defmed before we can offer more substantive advice on changes that might be made to the Code. We see the purpose of tonight's discussion, therefore, as one of focusing on the most important issues involved in signage, so that we might use our time and resources wisely in addressing the problems. There are a number of inter-related factors that contribute to sign clutter in an urban environment, and might be the basis for regulating signage. These include: 1) Height of the sign 2) Size area of sign 3) Placement of sign (related to setback) 4) Number of signs 5) Color, aesthetics of sign There are a number of other key questions that the Council and Commission may want to consider that will help us articulate new standards for signs, including: 1) Should the existing ordinance be completely overhauled or simply "tightened-up"? 2) Should signs be regulated by zoning district only or by street they front on? 3) Should the new ordinance be simple, with little flexibility, or offer flexibility at the expense of simplicity? I have attached a summary of information, analysis, and suggested standards for several types of signage. Use these as points of deþarture only, to facilitate discussion, not as final recommendations. We look forward to hearing your views and suggestions. 1118:SIGNl