My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_920408
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1992
>
pm_920408
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:52 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
4/8/1992
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />April 8, 1992 <br /> <br />Paget <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />Bob Treadway from First American Bank Metro, stated that because of <br />the limited number of characters which can appear on a sign at any <br />one time, that it is difficult to get a complete message under the <br />current sign change limits. Mr. Treadway pointed out that this is <br />effective advertising for the bank, that it has provided the <br />Commission with a study addressing potential safety issues and that <br />there should be a compromise reached on the type of mode. Mr. <br />Treadway also pointed out that the message length and mode is <br />controlled by a keyboard and that the current bank had no <br />connection with the previous bank which agreed to the time limits <br />on message change. <br /> <br />Roger Kapsner, from Investors Savings Bank, pointed out that they <br />are using only lO% of the capability of the sign and that the City <br />needs to better define what a flashing sign is. <br /> <br />Commissioner Harms stated that the City should ban new electronic <br />message centers but allow existing ones to continue to operate <br />within specific limitations. <br /> <br />Commissioner wietecki stated that it is not feasible to ban <br />electronic message centers but the City should control how they are <br />used. Commissioner wietecki pointed out that the city should not <br />prohibi t technology because we don't like one result. Commissioner <br />wietecki also stated that the City should slowly and carefully <br />study the issue to reach a balance between the service which is <br />being provided in the community and to the impact on aesthetics. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thomas expressed concern about the precedent and <br />future use of these type of signs by other businesses. <br /> <br />Commissioner Goedeke stated that he had a problem with messages <br />that are moving because they are distracting. Commissioner Goedeke <br />stated that a stationary message that changed every minute would be <br />okay but the size of the signs should also be controlled. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thomas stated that the City should ban future signs <br />and work with current locations to limit the time in which messages <br />change. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stokes stated that the signs can provide helpful <br />information but that time limits should be set. <br /> <br />Commissioner Harms stated that she didn't find the size of the <br />signs offensive but that she had a problem with bursts of color and <br />flashing. <br /> <br />Commission DeBenedet stated that he had a frustration with the lack <br />of compliance and after the fact acceptance. DeBenedet stated <br />that new signs should be banned and existing signs should be phased <br />out over time. DeBenedet added that the City should get away from <br />flashing signs and that the City can regulate aesthetics. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.