Laserfiche WebLink
L11DUM <br />DATE: 4 February 1993 <br />TOO Planning Co ission <br />FROG!: John Shardlow <br />RE* Update Sign Ordinance Issues <br />CKoD 9 <br />New ordinance standards have been adopted governing: contractor <br />signs, roof signs, real estate signs, political signs, window <br />signs, directional signs, and commercial and industrial signage. <br />There are also some sign issues that have been reviewed and <br />recomended by the Planning commission generallyr but, which have <br />not et been f orma f ly recommended to the City Council in ordinance <br />y . <br />languages- <br />There are also some sign issues that have been discussed at length, <br />but, final action wac delayed pc-nding review and direction from the- <br />City Councils These issues were reviewed w.% -th the Council at a <br />workshop meeting on January 19 and we have some direction to review <br />with the Planning Oommisbion� <br />R1WZW OF ISSUEs 3MR-MMY REVIE"D BY PLANNING OONKr.SSIORr T NOT <br />YES' FORKRLLY RECONXIMED IN ORDINANCE LRNGUAGE <br />There are two sign issues that .the planning Commission previously <br />reviewed and generally recommended to the City Council,. These <br />included wall aignage for multi tenant buildings that do not front <br />on a public street, and the handling of window signage in buildings <br />in which the principal exterior building material is glass. <br />In the case of inter . or tenant spaces, thi recommendation was to <br />allow -wall signage r .t to exceed 1l2 the area allowed for the, same <br />building if it were fronting on a public street. For window signs <br />in iouildings which are predominantly glass, the suggested standard <br />was again suggested as not to exceed 1/2 the allowed area of wall <br />signage. The city Council reviewed both of these recommendations <br />and agreed with.themo Suggested language is as follows: <br />