[ back ]
Mixed bag of sign rules sent to City Council
(by Joseph Koziol Jr. - October 22, 2008)
Mixed bag of sign rules sent to City Council
By JOSEPH KOZIOL JR.
Chardon city planners gave one final review Monday of new sign ordinances before passing them on to City Council.
The planning commission looked at electronic message signs, neon signs in the historic district and which signs should be permitted in public rights of way.
The only change the commission recommended was to prohibit all neon signs within the city's historic districts, and that narrowly passed on a 4-3 vote.
City Council will have the final say on all requirements of the new ordinance.
Because some planners considered them a detraction from the historic appearance of the city, they had proposed prohibiting all neon signs on the exterior of buildings. Those such as neon "open" signs hung in windows would have been permitted. However, the majority of members agreed that even the window signs should be prohibited.
Planning and Zoning Administrator John Sheehan said that the city was concerned with only exposed neon tubing and not the neon lighting used to illuminate or backlight signs.
The city has defined the prohibited signs as "neon light tubes exposed to direct view by pedestrians or motorists."
Commission chairman Kenneth Miller opposed the action, saying the commission has an "obligation to not over-regulate." He said it could discourage some businesses from moving into the city.
In another matter, the commission agreed not to adopt a proposed regulation that would have restricted window signs to one-third of the window size.
Councilman Philip King questioned whether elimination of that restriction would cause business owners to begin plastering entire windows with signs.
Mr. Sheehan said businesses could do that under existing regulations, but he has not seen that as a problem.
The commission also agreed to outlaw all electronic message signs in the city.
Commission member Gary Hanlon said businesses still have the opportunity to get variances for such signs.
A move to prohibit all signs within the public rights of way failed as the commission voted 4-3 against the measure.
Although the city was considering allowing political signs, regarded as free speech, Mr. Miller said he could not support such "inherent unfairness," unless all realty signs are also permitted there. "If you let one, let all," he said.
The city proposed allowing political signs within rights of way, as well as temporary signs for "open houses" and "garage sales." But it was considered a restriction of "for sale" signs only to private property, because their status is less than temporary.
Law Director James Gillette said the city can differentiate between commercial speech and individual free speech.
Because the city now prohibits all signs within the rights of way, Mr. Miller asked Mr. Sheehan how difficult it was to enforce the ban.
Mr. Sheehan said it took staff a "great deal of time" by going out two to three times a week. He said staff must stop every time a sign is found in the right of way and move it back.
Because of the difficulty of enforcement, Mr. Miller said, the city should consider keeping them all out.
Mr. King and commission member Andrew Blackley agreed.
Mr. Blackley said there also is the possibility that signs posted in rights of way could puncture utility lines, or they could block motorists' views.
Councilman Jefferey Campbell Jr. noted that council had already voted to allow political signs in the rights of way.
Councilwoman Leslie Bednar said that, because of the difference in the size of tree lawns throughout the city, some residents may be at a disadvantage if signs were not allowed in the rights of way. Those with deeper tree lawns would not get the same visibility for their signs as those with narrower tree lawns, she said.
[ back ]
