01/23/2008 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . , '. Mr. Rerko asked if the human wallcing signs would still be allowed. Mr. O'Malley advised that the chapter did not address "sign jigglers." He reviewed the manner in which the commission should proceed in its review of the proposed ordinance. The residential side of the code stems from the US Supreme Court ruling to allow any homeowner the right to have a sign expressing their opinion and during elections 5 additional yard signs. Ms. Meredith aslced if there was any discussion regarding political signs on commercial property. She believes there should be a limit to the number of political signs allowed on a corrunercial lot, but it should not count against the temporary signs nor should a permit be required. Mr. Malone felt that chapter 1163.34(B) section (E) was ambiguous and open to interpretation and suggested contacting a sign specialist to receive an interpretation of a professional sign. Mr. Bohlmann addressed 1163.21 which prohibits vehicular signs and questioned if there was a definition to the section. Ms. Wenger read aloud the definition of vehicular signs and advised that no changes were made to the section. Ms. Meredith suggested that 1163.11 (removal of signs) have stricter violation/penalties for repeat offenders. Mr. Malone asked if the ordinance would create more work for the building department. Mr. Conway said it would create more work and be a little inore cumbersome for applicants. However 95% of the commercial businesses understand the need to for stricter codes to ensure things don't get out of hand. Ms. Meredith questioned if there was a way to address the abundance of signs which appear over the weekends as businesses know that the building department is closed and take advantage of not being seen. Mr. Conway advised that there have been cases where the police have worlced with his department in cases with habitual offenders which they were made aware of. Mr. Burns with the Chamber of Commerce voiced that since the advisory committee was established the code changes coming from the committee have been well thought out changes. However section 1163.34(A)(2) should clarify if it is four feet from the top of the face or from the bottom. Section 1163.34(B)(1B) no signs attached to any permanent sign or sign base creates more cluttered signs. He suggested a sign elsewhere on the site could be removed and the building commissioner could have authority to regulate those types of temporary signs depending on the size of the lot. Section 1163.34 (131)(E) design of temporary signs must be professional in appearance. He suggested adding the wording "comparable to a sign" to the definition to ensure it would not exclude a sign being created in house. Section 1163.34 (133)(A) limits the number of sticlcers to two sticlcers per calendar year. It is not clear if a strip center is allowed only two or if each business in the center is allowed 2 stickers. Ms. Wenger advised that the intent was to allow each business to be issued 2 temporary stickers per calendar year. Mr. Burns section 1163.02 "definitions" the wording "building unit" should substitute "business location" wording. He questioned if limiting temporary sticlcers to 2 a year wasn't violating first amendment rights. Mr. O'Malley suggested that if Chamber of Commerce felt that there could be first amendment violations then he invites Chambers legal council to contact the law department to address the possible violations. Mr. Malone pointed out that temporary signs connected to a permanent signs would be considered a banner which is required to be attached to the building. Mr. Lasko moved, seconded by Ms. Meredith, to table ordinance 2008-6 to allow Ms. Wenger time to address issues that were brought up, which was unanimously approved 7-0.