02/29/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1163.15 The 90-day time period for considering a sign or property "abandoned" is unnecessarily short. Six months is the absolute minimum time period that should be provided, and one year would be far more reasonable. 1163.17 The provisions in (a) and (b) are potentially overly restrictive and need to be redefined to specify to what views, locations and/or angles they are to be applied. (c) Should be limited to words noimally used on accepted traffic signs. 1163.18 This provision gives the Building Commissioner excessive discretion and is unnecessary in light of the provisions in 1163.11. 1163.19 This provision is ambiguous as to provisions (a) and (b) and unduly restrictive as to (c). In addition, why would neon be prohibited in this section and required in the section regarding the mall. 1163.22 This provision is unduly restrictive. 1163.23 This provision is unduly restrictive. 1163.24 The allowable size calculations should not be stated on a"one size fits all" basis; but should be calculated to insure the visibility, Ieb bility and conspicuity of each sign depending on a building's setback from the road right-of-way and the speed of vehicular traffic on that road. 1163.26 There are circumstances where more than one ground sign is required for a property. (2) The 100- foot provision should state residential district, not residential property. There can be residential property in a commercial district. Why should the shape of a sign dictate how big it is allowed to be and how far the set back should be. The 35' triangle requirement is excessive and unrealistic. All of the dimensions here need to be justified. What purpose do they serve? . 1163.27 There are many situations where more than one wa11 sign is justified. Many businesses face more than one right of way. The six-inch eYtension of a wall sign is unrealistic. The power pack alone on a wall sign is 6". 1163.28 The one canopy sign per building is overly restrictive. Witness Ethan Allen 1163.30 The total prohibition of pole signs is overly restrictive. There are numerous businesses that can only display a pole sign, as fliere is no room for a ground sign. In addition, the requirement of a ground sign could eli.muiate parking spaces causing the business to violated the City ordinance regulating the number of parking spaces required. By definition, any sign with landscaping that prohibits pedestrian or vehicular traffic thereunder is not a pole sign and therefore is allowed under this ordinance. 1163.33 Why does Great Northern Mall have a separate ordinance? If the ordinance were huly content neutral, it wouldn't discrimuiate based on the identity of the speaker. It -is also discriminatory that a 20,000- sq. ft. business in the mall could have one size sign and the same size business in another part of town, selling the same product, would be required to put up a smaller sign. Additionally, subsections (d)(4) and (e)(4) violate the federal Lanham Act by requiring the alteration of a federally registered trademark. Subsection (fl(2) references sections described below that do not exist Once again, this in no way illustrates all of our problems with this proposed ordinance. We have offered to work with the City to discuss philosophies and to help draft a good, constitutional ordinance that we can all get behind and support We have offered to have professionals in this field come into the City and help draft the ordinance. It seems shortsighted that the City would not avail itself to this expertise. One can only question the motivation behind these decisions. I sincerely hope that the plaruiing commission seriously considers these issues and does not just recommend approval to keep this ordinance on the "fast track". The suggestion made last week to push it