02/29/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that that section was not part of the litigation and he doesn't believe that the Building Department has received complaints from the business community stating that it is to restrictive. Mr. Spalding -- commented that in the list of topics received from the Chamber of Commerce it indicates that they feel it is too restrictive. Mr. Spalding moved to 1163.25 "Types of Signs Permitted" he questioned why the sentence no signs other than the following types are permitted on private property within the city, didn't include all property. Mr. Dubelko remarked that the purpose of the zoning code is to regulate the use of private property. It is the government telling us how and how not we can use our property. Mr. Spalding indicated that then the government could have their signs without complying with the zoning code. Mr. Dubelko answered that was a true comment. Nir. Spalding questioned if 1163.26 " Ground Signs" was part of Mr. Hill's work. Mr. Conway indicated that part of it is from the former code and we are no longer differentiating from a ground sign, monument signs or pylon signs. There are some areas in which he has some concerns with as well. The city is now back to a standard setback relative to no matter how tall the sign is. He is not sure why they are dealing with 65 feet verses 50 square feet, because one sign is taller than others and some are wider then tall. He believes there should be one standard square footage. It should be 65 square feet and 8 feet high and drop tne 10-foot. -The City is not gaining anything by the breakdowns. It should just say 8 feet high ? 65 square feet and 8 feet from the right-of-way then deal with the setline triangles. W. Asseff noticed that the word "square" needed to be put in the sentences as it was left out. Mr. Tallon questioned what Mr. Conway would like to have stricken. Mr. Conway indicated that subsection (6) could be eliminated, and 10 feet back from the right-of-way line also. The City has established that a vehicle stopping a car legally at the sidewalk is going to have full line of vision if the sign is 8 foot back, no matter if it is 5 foot high or 8 foot high. W. Tallon reviewed that under 1163.26 "Ground Sings" would remain the same until subsection (5), which would remain the same until the wording "whichever is higher". Additionally, such-signs must be at least ten (10) feet back from every right- of-way should be stricken. Subsection (6) will be eliminated completely. Mr. Hreha believed that at the February 22, 2000 meeting 1163.26 subsection (2) was discussed and the board wanted the words "residential property" changed to "residentially zoned property". All board members present agreed that the wording should be "residentially zoned property". Mr. Spalding moved to 1163.27 "Wall Signs" he questioned whether or not the dimensions were reasonable. The concern list received tonight sugorests that the 6 inch extension of a wall sign is unrealistic a power pack alone on a wall is 6 inches. If that is the case how could there be any sign made to fit the restriction. W. Conway remarked that 6 inches would not be sufficient as 6 inches would be the minimum not the maximum. Mr. Spalding questioned what dimension should be used. Mr. Conway suggested getting suggestions from a sign expert as to what would be reasonable. Mr. Conway suggested that 75 square feet in a lot of cases was unreasonable, as some of the larger stores need more. That would be reasonable for a building 20, 30 or 40 foot wide but when they are 100 to 150 feet long it is not enough. The City may want to word it so that the sign doesn't exceed more than 60% of the front of the building. The sign needs to be proportionate to the size of the building. There also needs to be consideration for how far"a building is setback from the road. A building 50 feet from the road doesn't need as much sign as a building 300 feet from the road. Mr. Conway indicated that the purpose of the zoning code is not to generate more variances. Mr. Spalding agreed and questioned if Mr. Conway thought the City should also question a sign expert about his last comment. Mr. Conway commented "yes", the City has eliminated the height of a letter and if that is factual then its fine. The City wouldn't need special provisions for the mall and plaza north and south because that was the whole concept, if you needed 4 foot to see a sign 100 feet off the road a bigger sign was needed to see a sign 900 feet off 4