Laserfiche WebLink
Staff is recommending that when the copy of the sign is changed it would require a permit. This <br />should not be confused with a Changeable Copy Sign. (A sign orportion thereof avith characters, letters or <br />illusions that can be changed or rearranged mechanically avithout altering the face of the surface of the sign.). Staff <br />feels the permit process for a change of copy is necessary for two reasons: first, it allows the City <br />to inspect signs that may not have been permitted or inspected in the past; second, it allows the <br />review of what use is occupying a space. If a use is not permitted in a space, staff could discover <br />the use and have the applicant complete the proper application to permit the use, if allowable. <br />This is a fairly significant departure from the current City Ordinance. The challenges to the <br />businesses may include additional regulatory oversight and the requirement that additional <br />improvements to the building are necessary, etc. <br />2. Staff is recommending that the section (30-866) pertaining to rural based business signs be deleted. <br />The ordinance currently allows off-premise signs for rural based businesses. Staff feels it would be <br />beneficial to delete this section because it provides benefits to one group of businesses (rural) over <br />another (urban) and it is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance and home <br />occupation regulations. Rural based businesses axe often in conflict with neighboring properties, <br />many of whom are occupied by persons desiring the rural lifestyle; adding signage that directs <br />traffic through their areas appears inconsistent. Secondly, these rural based businesses are often <br />home occupations, and the ordinance is clear as to what type of businesses axe permitted and not <br />permitted. Businesses requiring frequent traffic to and from them are generally inconsistent with a <br />permitted home occupation. <br />3. Staff is suggesting that business owners be given the option (and perhaps added benefit) of <br />constructing a monument sign in lieu of a freestanding sign. Currently, businesses are not given <br />the option in the BP and C-4 zoning district. Staff is proposing regulation that would encourage <br />monument signs in the C-3 zoning district by allowing their size to increase by 25%. It is thought <br />that aone-time cost would be offset by the long term benefit of additional signage. The City's <br />benefit is that its streetscapes are not cluttered by poles and sign support structures. <br />4. Currently the ordinance states that all freestanding signs shall have self-supporting structures <br />permanently attached to concrete foundations. Staff believes that many signs are installed with two <br />structural posts that may or may not be concreted in. Staff believes this issue is resolved in the <br />ordinance, by requiring the signs to be consistent with the building code. Staff is not aware of a <br />greater intent behind the ordinance. <br />5. Lastly, staff is proposing a reduction of the size of commercial construction and commercial real <br />estate signs, dropping their allowed size from 64 square feet to 32 square feet. <br />There are, of course, other changes proposed, many of which are considered non-substantial. Staff is <br />prepared to answer any questions pertaining to these. <br />Definitions <br />A definition for moving signs has been drafted and the definition for alteration of a sign has been modified. <br />The sign area definition has also been revised to basically state that the area will be the rectangular area <br />that encompasses any and all parts of the sign. Lastly, definitions have been added to include a <br />freestanding sign and a monument sign. <br />S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\OA\OA 09-01 Sign Ord Update\OA 09-01_CC-3.doc <br />