02/29/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo to the members of the Planning Cominission The following is a partial list of objections, comments, and suggestions as it relates to proposed ordinance 2000-12 creating a revised chapter 1163. While this is by no means a complete and final analysis of this code, it will serve to begin dialogue with the commission and with council and the aciniuustration. When the ordinance was introduced, it was stated that the ordinance would substantially further the City's legitimate interests in the regulation of signage on private property in order to protect and promote traffic safety and aesthetics:... There is nothing in the ordinance that portrays how this will be accomplished. Simply stating that this is the objective does not satisfy the objective. 1163.04 If the pernut requirement in 1163.03 is truly a content-neutral erection pernut, that considers only objective criteria related to flie physical structure of the sign, then what is the rationale for the exceptions in (d) and (e)7 1163.05 Subsection (g) should specify what ordinances are included in the plu-ase "and other applicable ordinances of the City." This provision, in tandem with similar language in 1163.06 (d), creates the potential for an unlawful lack of certainty as to the standards to be applied for issuance of an erection pemut. 1163.06 The time period for a decision being rendered is excessive. Since the detemunarion is based solely on content-neutral "time, place or manner" factors, 10 days with a 10-day e,ctension is more than adequate. 1163.07 The separate ordinance establishing pernut fees should be referenced and identified here. 1163.08 The appeals process fails to meet the procedural requirements for a content-neutral time, place or manner regulation of protected speech. The problem lies in the fact that the judicial appeal under RC 2506 cannot satisfy the requirement that there be a final judicial decision within a time period that is short and certain. _ 1163.10 The issue of non-conforming signs seems retaliatory at best. The eYisting signs should be grandfathered. Absent that, the threshold for compliance should be no less tban 50% of the value of the sign. The change of ownership clause is too excessive. There are a number of circumstances that could come into play here. What if the landlord sells the property but the tenants remained unchanged? What if the business owner sells his business but the use does not change? Compliance should only result if the sign becomes obsolete. 1163.11 (1) The provision allowing removal of "any sign which constitutes a nuisance," unlawfully delegates unbridled discretion to the Building Commissioner and is unnecessary in light of the provision allowing removal for violation "of any provision in Sections 1163.13 through 1163.23 of this Chapter." (2) This provision lacks any procedural safeguards to insure that protected speech is not erroneously abated. At minimum, there should be a right to appeal the Commissioner's order to the BZA, with the status quo remaining in effect during the pendency of the appeai. (3) The fourteen-day time limit for compliance with an order under tlus provision is too short. It should be lengthened to a minimum of 30 days. 1163.12 This provision places and undo burden on the sign manufacturer. There are already federal requirements for the signs. If the City wishes the pemut # displayed, it should issue a sticker to applied at the time of installation. 1163.13 The maintenance provision is too restrictive. All signs show signs of dirt and could show signs of fading and discoloration. This provision should be limited to conditions of disrepair. 1163.14 What is the hazard to traffic control and safety.