Vice Mayor Byington explained that this is an ordinance to update the City’s sign regulations, which have not been materially updated since the current Zoning Ordinance took effect on January 1, 2001. The draft ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney to accomplish three goals:
- To establish clear regulations for the use of electronic signage;
- To ensure effective administration while remaining constitutional; and
- To add clarity and consistency throughout the sign code.
As a text amendment to the Zoning Code, this ordinance is subject to a two-step approval process that requires public hearings before the Planning Commission and Council.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 6. By a vote of 3-2, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance, but conditioned that recommendation on the removal of certain provisions from the draft. Those provisions include:
- Section 1201.06(C)(5), which permits electronic changeable copy to be used on certain monument signs;
- Section 1201.06(D), which sets forth regulations applicable to monument signs displaying electronic changeable copy; and
- Section 1201.06(F)(2), which requires all permanent signs to be constructed of non-combustible materials.
This ordinance was introduced with a first reading at the April 1 Council meeting, and tonight is the second reading and public hearing.
Vice Mayor Byington noted that Law Director Rob Jacques would be making a staff presentation, and then asked Mayor Duncan to open the public hearing.
Mayor Duncan explained the public hearing process. He also explained that this is a quasi-judicial hearing, so after his presentation, Mr. Jacques will be administering an oath to those wishing to testify in the audience.
Mr. Jacques referenced a PowerPoint presentation and provided the following information:
The goals of drafting the sign code text amendments are to properly define and regulate the use of electronic changeable copy (digital) signs; to ensure that the sign code complies with the First Amendment by shifting from regulations that may be construed as content-based to regulations that are content-neutral; and general revisions to clarify terms and provisions that could be construed as unconstitutionally vague. The current version of the Code was adopted in 2001.
Mr. Jacques asked City Council to follow the decision standard as listed in Section 1003.6(B) of the Oakwood Zoning Code. The Code states “Text amendments shall be reviewed for consistency with the purposes of (the Zoning Code), the Comprehensive Plan, and interests of the city of Oakwood as a whole.” The Planning Commission recommended approval, but City Council makes the final decision to approve or deny the ordinance.
The purpose of the sign code is to preserve the character of distinct neighborhoods; to promote ease of locating/identifying buildings; to avoid motorist distractions and traffic/safety hazards; to maintain property values, avoid nuisances, and minimize “sign clutter”; and to protect public peace, health, safety, welfare, convenience, and comfort. The challenge is to accomplish these purposes while protecting the rights of free speech and expression.
The various sign types were then reviewed to acquaint City Council with the terminology. Mr. Jacques displayed pictures and provided brief descriptions of general signs including: temporary signs; wall signs; ground/monument signs; window signs; window display signs; permanent window signs; temporary window signs; awning signs; and canopy signs. He then reviewed sub-type signs based on function including: attention-getting devices; availability signs; banner signs; changeable copy signs; directory signs; entry signs; home occupation signs; identification signs; external illuminated signs; internal illuminated signs; nameplate signs; off-premises signs; parking control signs; pole signs; projecting signs; roof signs; and secondary signs.
Mr. Jacques reviewed concerns with the existing sign ordinance. The existing ordinance defines 36 “functional types” of signs, with other categories interspersed in unusual locations, and many of these sign definitions are contradictory. The definitions have inconsistent inclusion of dimensional requirements and number requirements. The 1997 Business District Design Guidelines, which are a separate non-codified document, do not contain specific information and are overly relied upon.