AgdaPkt 2007-05-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.4B Page 49 4. Commercial messages on signs can be substituted for messages that are non- commercia! in nature (a restauran#could change its sign message advertising its business name, �o a message reminding the public to vote, for example) The proposed ordinance changes are consistent with past direction from Councii, and include the following issues: Sign Reface: (Article 11, Sec. 3.59.E.) A permit would be required far "re-facing" i.e. changing the front s#reet-facing portion of existing signs. This requirement does not in any way controf content but rather insures the following: • The stru�t�rai in.egrity of the existing sgr is verified by the City(for example, mast "re-facings" involve signs that are dated and which must conform to current wind load as well as other Uniform Building Code and U.L.{Underwriter's Laboratories) rating requirements) • The electrical connections and/or�ny new upgrades re{ated to iflumination must be specified and reviewed by the City(for example, some eiectrically illuminated signs are not equipped ta hand(e bulbs with higher wattage, some vendors piace bright white plastic faces when the City has cansistently required aff white faces to avoid generating glare) • Planning staff verification of the overall site's conformance to the current sign code Amortization: (Arficle 1l, Sec. 3.904.D.) The current sign ordinance was adopted on June 28, 1999 by the City Council and at that time, a comprehensive sign inventory was conducted as part of an amortization {removal) process for nonconforming signs. Under the current sign ordinance (Division 13), a!f non- conforming signs were scheduled ta be "amortized" according to sign type. Over the last seven years, approximately 60% af documented non-conforming signs have been eiiminated either through active enforcement by �he sign Code Enforcement �fficer (position curren#ly eliminated) or through sign applications from businesses who seek to upgrade the look of their establishments. Under the proposed new ordinance, signs designated as non-conforming would be prov��d v,��tf� the �ollowing extensions in order io further amort'rze their consirucfion �na advertising value: 1. "Freestanding Signs" {for example, tall pole-mounted signs), 8 more years 2. Roof-mounted and large wall signs, 4 more years 3. Architectural/awning canopy/blade signs, 2 more years (This category wil! be eliminated upon final con�rmation fhat no examples are faund to remain.) As of January 2007, the sign inven#ory for nan-conforming signs has been comprehensively updated {Attachment 2). Staff proposes to continue a "passive" enforcement of the replacement/rernoval of these signs during an extended amortizatian period, allowing businesses the flexibility of updating their sign displays anytime during this phase. 2