My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02071
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2000
>
pf_02071
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 1:41:13 PM
Creation date
12/10/2004 8:54:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2071
Planning Files - Type
Special Use Permit
Address
1525 COUNTY ROAD C W
Applicant
OLIVE GARDEN/GERALD RICHARD
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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 /><>-. <br />~ -..,.. <br /> <br />Craig Waldron, 13 August 1990 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />With the existing Sign Code in place and given the degree to which the overall Fine <br />Associates project has already been developed and the preponderance of existing pylon <br />signs, I can only recommend that the City Council approve the proposed pylon sign at the <br />Olive Garden site. The existing ordinance does not give the City the authority to require <br />a monument sign. <br /> <br />In closing, I want to assure you and the City Council Members that we are strongly <br />supportive of both the need and the benefits of a wholesale revision of the Roseville Sign <br />Code. Everyone must understand that this is an extremely complicated area of zoning <br />law, and issues related to free speech, equal protection, and substantive due process must <br />be carefully considered when evaluating new standards and procedures. <br /> <br />I have previously mentioned to you that we are just completing a comprehensive revision <br />of the Burnsville sign code. This was a process that began with many of the same <br />concerns that are being voiced in Roseville, Attached is a copy of a newspaper article <br />describing the amendment process and the participants, as well as a copy of the revised <br />sign code. You will note that it is a 65-page document. Each page is divided into four <br />columns: the first column presents the current regulation, the second column identifies the <br />problems or issues that have been raised regarding this regulation, the third column <br />presents the revised regulation, and the fourth column summarizes the proposed change, <br /> <br />This was a long and involved process that included literally hundreds of hours of meetings <br />and the participation of not only the Planning Commission, City Council, and Staff, but <br />also a task force consisting of a diverse representation of the business and development <br />community. Needless to say, no group got everything that they wanted, but everybody was <br />heard and participated in the process. In my opinion, anything less than this level of <br />disclosure and participation would result in a document that would be controversial and <br />lack the support of the community. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.