HomeMy WebLinkAboutTask Force Feedback • Ow d to 0 t F1.- - vr bOCCe c( c(e _ vo of/ (? 4 h .
'wad t dice .�i5 d. -AA( vs'11.vtisfr#t ye
� orec� eedback
2 August 2012
Pages refer to redlined version.
Page 3—Sign Maintenance c): However, any Sign Alteration shall require sign permit
approval. Does this pertain to a change in phone number? In website addres ?
No bccud4C i'fss ) • -.-/ I f •
Page 4—Exempted S'gns, first para raph, second sentence. Do rlve need to define "total sign
package"? M c? 10 c • In i t
Page 5 - f) prohibition of suspended signs which swing. How can y u prevent wind from
affecting a projecting sign? and i) "Portable signs which are(portable)or moveable." Our opinion
is that this should be in the definition section. Our guess is this is way of prohibiting sandwich
hoard signs; we believe they should be allowed. \ C fr Cl-Vt9 ( all,l cl of .
Page 8—Permitted Signs H. Our notes from the 6 December meeting indicate `that the
paragraph should provide for the property owner to sign an affidavit acknowledging awareness
of the right-of-way and agreeing to move a sign at their own expense if road work occurs.There
are several more of these. 01A- S-1--
Page 12—Single Tenant Building— This is the first of the Frontage vs. Facade debate, that are
k Id9' "� throughout the ordinance and represent one of our primary concerns.
"rtS b) Number& Type 1. Why are three signs allowable on a single tenant building and only two
,0 Vi v— on multi-tenant buildings? We do not have these changes from any of our meeting notes.
�l "f r. Maximum Sign Area#4—Prefer percentage for Sign Chart, not chart.
,c/- e) Why are awning heights being specified? We view this as unnecessary and handled through
.rp °11.- building codes elsewhere. We have no record of this in our committee meeting notes.
td✓l g) Copy—Aren't gas station changes and most other current changeable copy signs over 50%?
Page ulti-Tena : 1 :'ngs—b) Num.. : pe per tenant— , iot three as ' r _
re :nt buil•
Page 14—2) Our notes from the 3 January meeting say "maximum two (2)" was deleted.
Multi-Tenant, Multi-Level Office Building—again, the frontage vs..facade debate. Also, aren't
there currently buildings on US 31 with more than three signs? (Turkle)
4. Multi-Tenant, Multi-Level, Mixed Use Buildings - We would like to see upper level tenants
provided with signage, as City Center tenants are.
Page 15 — The whole Location and Design sections presented here was not part of discussion at
the committee. e) 1.Awning signs in this section were not part of our committee discussion.
Again, awning distance (8 feet)should be in building design and code, not in the sign ordinance.
age 16—f) Design, 3. Menu Board Recommend deletion of"wood or metal."
g) Copy,3. We are uncomfortable with dictating materials.
/Page 18—a) Non-illuminated maximum sign area is 30%of total, but Illuminated is Three
square feet. Why aren't these identical? We'. . : :. '. . i
,/Page 19—4. Required A., oval. ) om our d' eussi,&that we re Wh _would this be in
the middle of window : gns?
,age 25—Temporary Signs. We don't recall the inclusion of real estate signs in letter A during
discussions. Additionally, we recall that temporary signs cannot have interior illumination but
can be lighted by a light fixture outside of the sign (e.g. temporary bank sign in February).
Construction Signs—Biggest remaining concerns are two fold: 1. Time -forced removal of
sign if project is not complete in 18 months and 2. Copy - cramming of all information onto one
sign, virtually negating readability. While we understand we will not win the "level playing
field"argument regarding the city's greater options, this puts private developers at a distinct
disadvantage. Finally, why, if these are not permanent signs, is the proposed thoroughfare stuff
in there? Why not utilize the affidavit idea so that the owner is responsible for
removing/relocating the sign if necessary?
Page 27—Real Estate Signs
This is one of our top issues with the ordinance. We see the downsizing of commercial signs
from 32 square feet to 20 as unfair.
Page 28—Time. We disagree with forced removal and reapplication.
Page 29—Signage for Temporary Uses
First sentence—"This section shall apply to those temporary uses established by Section 25.23
and 25.24 of this ordinance." Where are those sections in this ordinance?
Same issue with location. If the road is improved, mandate that the sign has to be moved at
owner's expense.
Model Home & Temporary Sales Office
Same issue with location. If the road is improved, the sign has to be moved at owner's expense.
Page 30—Street Banners for Civic Events
b) Number, type and location#5. This is new copy since the committee. Banners currently on
display violate this.
c. Maximum Sign Area. Joel suggests the ordinance say they should be 3x8 horizontals. Other
sizes won't fit the fence; roll over the top to be secured, etc.
g.)Time. This was also not in our review. Previous time limit was 30 days.
Page 30—Business Opening/Closing Banner and Interim Banners
B. f) Copy. What about "Opening November 2012"? Not allowed?
Why have two separate sections for this?
Drum roll please. . .
The Sign Chart (which the committee discussed but did not review changes to)
Our notes say that on 11 June we discussed enhancing the chart and providing larger ranges,
especially if we were going to consider merging two charts(non freeway and freeway) into one.
Instead we have one chart with smaller available signs, some of which, we believe, specify
smaller freeway signage than some currently on the 31 corridor.
Here's our suggestion, based on other area sign ordinances. We believe it to be simpler, much
easier to understand and fairer.
• Create a ratio of 1:1.5. 1.5 square feet of signage for every 1 linear foot of frontage.
• Set a cap at 300 square feet.
• Set a minimum of 35 square feet so as not to penalize small businesses.
Definitions
Alteration, Sign—this ties with our first comment. What about a change in the phone number?
gn, Porch— We understood the second sentence relating to requirements would be v<ign, Windows—a.k.a. The CVS rule?! Is the intent to make currently-utilized window
Xisible reatments illegal(e.g. First Financial)?
Light Source—Is the wording to suggest no uncovered or "raw" LED?
And finally -
There was no review of the visual guide or the instructions for how to obtain a sign. We
understand that the instructions are not a part of the ordinance, but the visual guide is, correct?
And because we see the instructions as an ongoing source of concern to businesses, we want to
see a major revision occur. Is that something you'd prefer be discussed between the department
and us?
Need t n -P'frir`sh Ha