pf_02477 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MEMORANDUM DATE: 13 May 1992 TO: Roseville City COWlcil FROM: Jom Shardlow, Phil Carlson; Dalùgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. RE: Direction for the Planning Commission on Sign Ordinance Issues Related to Special Event Signage As you are aware, the Planning Commission has been discussing the Sign Ordinance in recent months and possible revisions to it At their workshop on April 29, the Commission considered the subject of signs and banners for special events, and there was a great divergence of opinion on the subject Rather than spend time and effort refining a course of action that may be completely out of line with the Council's wishes, the Commissioners asked us to summarize the various viewpoints expressed and ask for your guidance. It has been our asswnption that the discussion of the Sign Ordinance stems from a widespread concern over the proliferation of signage in the community and the perceived negative impact it has on the appearance of the community. At the same time, there is recognition of the legitimate interests of the business community (and others) to be able to offer their message to the public in a reasonable way so that they might be successful in the marketplace. The thrust of the discussion, therefore, has been to be more restrictive in the Sign Ordinance standards, but not unreasonable or punitive. For this particular set of issues we are nm concerned with major penn anent signage, such as wall signs, pylon signs, or monument signs, but rather temporary signs and banners for seasonal or special events. The discussion has centered on what differences there should be, if any, between the regulation of these special event signs and banners in Business Districts versus Residential Districts, particularly for churches and other institutional uses wtúch are allowed in the R-l District. Parks, churches, convents, libraries, City buildings, schools, colleges, and low-impact quasi-public uses are pennitted in the R-I District. Golf courses, tennis clubs, public swimming pools, stadiwns, day care centers, college donnitories, certain beauty parlors and barber shops, funeral chapels, and moderate impact quasi-public uses are allowed by Special Use Pennit. The three basic approaches the Commission would like you to consider are: 1. Restrict Business signage more than Residential signage. This view assumes that Business signs more severely affect the community aesthetic than church-related signs and that the special nature of non-profit organizations deserves some recognition and encouragement by the City through less stringent signage standards. It recognizes that different zoning districts can have different standards for the same issue. This view sees the main aesthetic problem as being in the commercial areas where every business is vying for attention, and not the residential areas, where there are relatively few large institutions that might display such signs and banners. 2. Treat Business and Residential sign age equally. In this view, the important issue is equal protection, recognizing the Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantee that all people in similar situations must be treated similarly. If banners ten times a year are too much for a car dealer, then the same type of banners ten times a year ought be denied to churches as well. But if the car dealer is allowed some special event banners, then the churches should be allowed the same style and frequency of banners.