My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03190
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3100
>
pf_03190
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:54:04 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 3:58:48 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />2.1 Exempt all non-commercial flags from the definition of signs, consequently allowing <br />any flag, with any "non-commercial" message, to be displayed on any property within the <br />City. <br /> <br />2.2 Allow, in addition to other signage, the display of flags. American flags, or other flags <br />that do not communicate a commercial message, could be flown without restrictions <br />as to number, size, etc. However, if a flag contains any commercial message that <br />meets the definition of a business sign advertising a product or service sold on the site, <br />the commercial signage on the flag would be counted as a portion of the permitted on-site <br />commercial signage and be limited to the amount of signage allowed on a site. <br /> <br />3.0 BACKGROUND on PROPOSE ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS <br /> <br />3.1 The City Code provides clear direction with regard to the application process, review <br />procedures and appeal procedures, when variance, conditional use permit, and <br />subdivision approvals are involved. But the City Code is not sufficiently clear when <br />other types of permits or staff administrative determinations are involved. Most notably <br />is the city's recent experience with sign permitting and code interpretations, which were <br />also discussed in Judge Rosenbaum's decision. Staff is proposing amendments to <br />address these concerns, eliminating language that could be interpreted as granting staff <br />too much discretion, and adding procedures clarifying appeal rights of permit applicants <br />and other interested persons. <br /> <br />4.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />The Zoning Committee reviewed the various options on March 1, 2000 and AprilS, <br />2000, and after lengthy discussion selected the recommended amendments, and voted <br />unanimously on April 12, 2000 to recommend Council adoption of the proposed <br />amendments to the City Code. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission, at the April 1 ih meeting, recommended approval of the <br />amendments to the Code as presented. The City Council, at the April 24th meeting, held <br />the first hearing on the Ordinance setting May sth for the second reading of the <br />Ordinance. <br /> <br />The City Attorney has provided an updated ordinance (attached), which describes the <br />new definitions, the new flag and sign regulations, and the new administrative <br />amendments. <br /> <br />Planning File #3190 (Sign Ordinance - Flag) RCA 05/08/00 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.