Laserfiche WebLink
way in the old sign code or just added in. Mr. Conway indicated that window signs were not <br />permitted at all under the old code so this is new. It is not uncommon to have a dimension from a <br />deinising wall between tenants to hold signs back 3 feet. Three feet in his opinion is more standard <br />and 2 feet would be a little more restrictive. Mr. Spalding addressed 1163.32 "Temporary Signs" he <br />questioned if help wanted signs were included in this section. Mr. Conway indicated that he had <br />always interpreted the code to not be including those because those signs do not promote the business <br />or attracting attention to the business itself, help wanted signs have always been allowed. The only <br />thing the City doesn't allow is help wanted sign that would say i.e. Burger King help wanted. Mr. <br />Dubelko also indicated that help wanted signs would also be in the exception from the permit <br />requirement for signs as they are less than 4 square feet in area. Which would be found under section <br />1163.04 of the code. Mr. Spalding questioned 1163.33 " Signage-Great Northern Mall and Plazas <br />north and south" he remarked that neon signs are allowed in the mall area but not in rest of the <br />businesses outside the mall. Mr. Dubelko interjected that if the entire ordinance is a work in progress <br />then 1163.33 is really work in progress, that is something that needs worked and the City should look <br />at that carefully. He questioned Mr. Conway if this section was a proposal from Great Northern Mall <br />with respect to how to deal with signs at the plazas. Mr. Conway indicated that that was correct and <br />that the City had worked with Developers Diversified on some conditions that they wanted to have. <br />Mr. Dubelko remarked that 1163.33 needed a lot of work and there are objections to treating Great <br />Northern Mall differently then other businesses but they are different. Because of their size and the <br />configuration of their buildings they are marketability different from any other development within the <br />City. Mr. Conway suggested that if the City was looking for expedience, section 1163.33 should be <br />stricken from the ordinance. Mr. Spalding questioned section (F) " General Regulations" subsection <br />(2) No tenant, in Plaza South or North buildings B or C will have a sign on the rear of the building <br />except for service identification as described below. He indicated that there was nothing described <br />below. Mr. Conway commented that if a sign is on the back of a building and he can't see it then he <br />couldn't address it anyway. Mr. Spalding indicated that those were all of his major concerns, but he <br />hadn't had the chance. to review the expressed concerns that were addressed by the Chamber of <br />Commerce's list that was received tonight. He would like to recommend to council that whoever <br />addresses the list of concerns is going to review the ordinance. It is important that this ordinance be <br />as close to what people can live with and what is reasonable as possible. Obviously the City can <br />amend it and modify it at a future time, but now is the tiine to do the best job they can. The listed <br />objections should be addressed or at least considered, maybe the Planning Commission is not the <br />body to do that. Mr. Spalding asked if the Planning Comrriission should be reviewing the listed <br />concerns. Mr. Dubelko indicated "yes", it is part of the job of the Planning Commission to review <br />objections. Any time there is an amendment to the Zoning Code it has to be referred to Planning <br />Commission for their approval or disapproval. Mr. Spalding questioned Mr. Dubelko if it was the <br />Planning Commission job tonight to review the listed objections that have submitted by the business <br />community. Mr. Dubelko indicated that the code simply says that all Zoning Code amendments are <br />to be referred to the Planning Commission for review and report within 30 days. Maybe that is a little <br />bit of guidance of the extent that City Council considers Planning Commission looking into very <br />deeply. Mr. Spalding commented that he was concerned because the Planning Commission had just <br />received the ordinance itself last week at their meeting and they have only had a week to review it. <br />The business conununity received it at the same time and he doesn't know if they have had enough <br />time to carefully review it either. Mr. Dubelko indicated that the Chamber has had a copy of the <br />ordinance since it was first introduced and received the amended draft before the Planning <br />7