Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DATE: <br />SUBJECT: <br />FROM: <br /> <br />May 22, 1992 <br />Sign Ordinance <br />Cheryl Bumstead-Johnson, Chair <br />Roseville Park and Recreation Commission <br />Steve Sarkozy, City Manager <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />At the April meeting of the Park and Recr.eation Commission we <br />discussed the situation of park signs being outside of the <br />ord~nance requirements. We are aware of at least two specific <br />instances that do not meet code. <br /> <br />After conside(able discussion about the need for a sign <br />ordinace as well as the effects on different types of entities, <br />we would like to request that the Planning Commission and the <br />City Council review the ordinance requirements, and consider <br />different quidelines for various catagories of entities. <br />Perhaps a different classification and set of criteria could <br />be developed for municipal signage. <br /> <br />When we looked at specific park signage, it was apparent that <br />there are many reasons why they should not be moved to meet the <br />required set backs. In several cases, the signs would not be <br />seen by passers by, or trees would have to be removed to allow <br />for the set back. Moving the sign beyond the required <br />setback could also create a safety issue if it had to be <br />placed in a play area or ball field. <br /> <br />In looking at the comparison between commercial signs and park <br />signs it was felt that the park signs, ds well as other <br />municipal signs, serve a different purpose than commercial <br />signs. They are not there for competitive purposes but rather <br />to serve the public. <br /> <br />We would be happy to meet with you, the planning commission, <br />or City Council members to further discuss this situation. <br /> <br />Thank you for your consideration. <br /> <br />cc: Bob Bierscheid <br />