10/22/1982 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW OCTOBER 22, 1982 PAGE 2 The Board discussed the proposed Ordinance. Mr...Carl Hixson of Bob Cutler Signs, and a member of the Northern Ohio Sign Contractors Association was present. Mr. Ebin read his statement: "I believe that the ordinance as written should not be adopted. Any sign that has been previously approved and that needs replacement because-of being broken or deteriorated should able to be replaced without approvals and as stated in the proposed Ordinance (Section 1, c), provided it is identical in all respects to the original sign. If a sign is to be altered or a new sign is to be erected, it should be reviewed by the Architectural Board of Review in any case. This review includes the following which is part of the powers of the Architectural Board of Review (Section 1217.11 of the Zoning Codes) and/or like would not be observed by the Building Official: Materials Colors Appropriateness to surrounding elements Style and character of lettering Style and `c"haracter of overall sign composition and layout Elimination-of exposed wires (swagged electrical hook-ups) Appropriateness of inessage displayed Double meaning of f4ords Sexual inferences or other immoral or inappropriate messages These things are all reviewed by.this Board and they are not part of the Zoning Code. The Ordinance should be changed to allow a Building Official approval of replacement only of identical previ- ously approved signs. Signs are a major element in the looks and image projected by our City." .,_ After some discussion, the Board agreed to the concept of streamlining the sign review process, however they disagree with eliminating the Architectural Board of Review from whatever process is ever adopted. It was pointed out that Section 1217.11 of the Zoning Code states that a major responsibility of the Architectural Board of Review is signs _ which includes size, scale, shape, color and illumination with relation- ship of the building site. Ordinance 82-124 would totally delete this responsibility from the Board. A set of rules and specifications would be adopted.as a guide for sign applicants. . Mr. Ebin moved to recommend disapproval of Ord. 82-124 because of the fa,ict that if the Building Department reviews the applications for the signs based on the Zoning Code, they are not reviewing for materials, colors, appropriateness of the surrounding elements, the style and character of lettering, style and character of overall sign composition and layout, eliminaL'ioti of exposed wires :(.sF?agged.electrical hook-ups), appropriateness of inessage displayed, double meaning of words, seconded by R. Parry, and unanimously approved. R. Parry moved to recommend that all signs, new and replacements, other than exact duplicates be referred from the Building Department to the