|
<br />il6516362118
<br />ROSE/COMM/DEV 4ge2931
<br />
<br />02/25/00 09:03 B :02/05 NO:058
<br />NO. 056 P.3
<br />
<br />. TODD YOUNG LAW FIRM
<br />f, .,,'(.:~. J'tS.' 15. 212'0121 2: 07PM
<br />t;:i~\<.: .
<br />
<br />I ;;::~;"...,: :
<br />r;~~{{~,.... .:::
<br />h,.l'" ;
<br />r-~~.~~.:;:' -.
<br />r"-';.: .
<br />
<br />:. .'
<br />
<br />
<br />. .
<br />
<br />,?~:.;~ : .:.. . '.
<br />
<br />rl ,,'.'~ .
<br />. ';~'..' .
<br />~.' ,,'. ....
<br />
<br />:;~:;. ':":
<br />'.1:'cr.:
<br />;--'" ~::: ~
<br />"..~ .' .
<br />r.:"t~~'. ,"
<br />.;~~-;- '.
<br />
<br />~:'::.', .
<br />ry .,.
<br />~i;'.
<br />
<br />:;~;t~:;.:.': .
<br />
<br />'f.0:~:::~ "
<br />
<br />~,:'.~~"~' "
<br />~~: ...~. . .
<br />
<br />
<br />~~,
<br />t;;.:;,i:.: .:.-
<br />
<br />~~.'c.~' .
<br />~)~'::". ,"-
<br />~~ ~;.> "
<br />;;. ~ ;;. ..,
<br />
<br />
<br />~K, ·
<br />r~[: "':( :
<br />
<br />~:;:.".,' ":",7;
<br />
<br />:.;;(".:': ..'
<br />~::.~'>.,:: ..~ .... .
<br />~f:;)
<br />
<br />
<br />", ~~~~.:" - - :.
<br />:.."-:.........,!. .:. ."
<br />~i.' _ ',,- .-';
<br />
<br />;;X~.~>.. .
<br />~y/;:;.......
<br />~:~;).~,.:tOi>
<br />t ~. 'C)-.. .If
<br />:~~t:~: J ~: ..,):. .
<br />
<br />2.1
<br />
<br />Treat flags, l'eaardless of commlU1icative mess8ie, exactly Ute same as Qther signs or
<br />commW1icative devices, subject to all size, location, and pennitting requirements. This
<br />approach is the most cefemible Il'oln a constitutiol\a.I perspective, in that it would be
<br />content neutral and h1Volve the Jeast amount of judgment by enforcement officel'S of the
<br />City.
<br />
<br />2.2 Exempt aU flags from the definition of signs, cOI1$equelltIy allowing any nwnber of flags.
<br />with any message, to be displayed on any properties within the City. A colnplete
<br />eX81uption from size, number. and permit'ting requirements may lead to a proliferation of
<br />flags as "flexible billboards" and could result in additional lawsuits conn-asung the:: City's
<br />trcattnent of flags with the City' 8 regulation or balUlerS, peMants, etc.
<br />
<br />2.3 Allow, in addition to other signase, the display of one flag per lot, it,'espective of
<br />message,
<br />
<br />3.0
<br />
<br />3.1
<br />
<br />4.0
<br />
<br />4.1
<br />
<br />2.4
<br />
<br />Allow, in addition to other signage, the display of allY number of flags provided that any
<br />flal that contains any cornmerotall'11e5sage that meets the definition of a business sign
<br />would have to oomply '~th the size. nwnber and pem~ittillg requirements of the
<br />ordinance,
<br />
<br />BACKGROUND on ADMINISTR<\ TION REQUEST
<br />
<br />The City Code provides clear direction witl1 regard to the application proce::ss, review
<br />procedures and appeal procedw'e$, when. variance, conditional use pennit, and
<br />subdivision approvals are involved. But tile City Code is not sufficiently clear wh~n
<br />other types of permits or staff administrative detenninations are involved. Most notably
<br />is tbe city's recent experience with sigl1l'ennitting and code inter:pretations,
<br />
<br />STAFF RECOMMENDATION
<br />
<br />Staff tecomrnel1d5 the PJam~ing Commission review and consider the attached draft
<br />ordinance regal'dina amendments to Section 1009 (sign rc:aulatiol1s) and 1014
<br />(administration) of the RoseviHe Zoning Otdh1ance, as p1'epared by the City Attorney.
<br />The reconunended ordinance 1110difications will be forwarded to the City COW1cil for a
<br />first reading and their consideration on February 28, 2000.
<br />
<br />PMl1nil1i File #3190 (Sign Qrdinancl: . Fla2) 02/09/00 Pall~ I of 2
<br />
|