[ back ]
Business signs to go up, down on Charrdon Square
(by Joseph Koziol Jr. - February 25, 2010)
Business signs to go up, down on Chardon Square
By JOSEPH KOZIOL JR.
The Chardon planning commission agreed this month week to tweak city sign ordinances for businesses along Main Street.
The commission decided to revise an ordinance which only permitted signs for businesses on the first floors of the buildings along the street. Once the change is adopted, businesses on the basement level or on the upper floors will be permitted to hang projecting signs.
John Sheehan, the city's planning and zoning administrator, brought the issue to the commission, asking whether the other businesses in those buildings were being treated fairly.
"Is it OK to allow only signs for the first floor?" Mr. Sheehan asked.
He cited section 1129.07(c)(5) which allows wall, awning, canopy and projecting signs only for first-floor tenant spaces.
As part of the comprehensive plan, the move was intended to support retail operations on the first floor.
The buildings often can have a business in the basement and possibly one or two on the upper floors, he said. But, the ordinance as it exists does not entitle those businesses to signs.
Complicating the issue, Mr. Sheehan said, is that the buildings are set up as essentially condominiums with one person owning a second floor and another owning the first floor.
Assistant City Manager Randal Sharpe said one of the businesses had set up a display of products on the first floor to essentially advertise what was being offered on the basement level.
Mr. Sharpe said, when the city developed its latest comprehensive plan, the buildings along Main Street were designated as mixed use. The intent was to promote retail operations on the first floor with the upper floors reverting to apartments, he said.
Councilwoman Leslie Bednar said she understands the intent to promote the retail businesses on the first floor, but the city wants to be more business friendly.
Councilman Robert Cromwell asked whether the city could distinguish between retail and other types of businesses, allowing signs for the retail stores.
Law Director James Gillette said the city should not look in that direction because it would be difficult to provide an advantage to certain businesses and not to others.
Mr. Sheehan said an architectural detail in the buildings along Main Street allowed space for signs in a band that ran between the first floor and the second floor. He said the old ordinance allowed the building owners to determine who got space on that sign. The city required that no more than 90 percent of the space be used.
Under that ordinance, business owners could determine whether businesses on any level could be advertised, he said. "That opportunity no longer exists with the new ordinance."
Mrs. Bednar said one building along the square, just south of the courthouse annex, known as the Williamsburg Building, appears to have a sign for every business in the building.
Mr. Sheehan said the signs have been there many years and were grandfathered.
Commission chairman Kenneth Miller said issues with signs have been a continual problem. Every time an ordinance is written, there appear to be justified exceptions, he said. "The more detailed we attempt to get, the more we micromanage."
Mr. Miller said providing variances may provide a solution to the latest problem with each applicant evaluated on their particular situation.
But Mr. Gillette said, once a variance is granted to one applicant, it would be difficult to tell the next one he cannot have one.
Instead, the commission agreed to allow businesses in the various levels to use projecting signs. The signs could include one or more businesses by hanging the various nameplates from the same hardware.
[ back ]
