Mrs. Urbas commented that from a message display perspective, the limitations of both the character size and the five inch lettering would render the sign useless. She calculated that with these size limitations, there would only be enough room for 12 characters. She feels that electronic changeable copy signs will deface the look of the Oakwood community.

Mayor Duncan asked what message is currently displayed on the Oakwood Community Center sign.

Mr. Jacques stated the he believes the Oakwood Community Center sign is currently providing basic event information and the time and temperature, but the goal is to provide additional information for upcoming events.

Mayor Duncan asked if 5” letters were used on the old Oakwood Community Center sign.

Mr. Jacques stated that the current code does not include a 5” letter rule, so some of the messages displayed on the old Oakwood Community Center sign may have been smaller.

Mayor Duncan asked if the Oakwood Community Center feels that the new sign will still be operational if the letter size is 5”.

Mr. Jacques shared that the Oakwood Community Center will still want a sign, even if the letters are smaller.

Mr. Rob Degenhart, 701 Shafor Boulevard, shared that he has enjoyed living in Oakwood for the past 17 years. His expectations have been consistently met, and many times surpassed with the quality of Oakwood services. He stated that based on Council’s comments, and whatever was discussed in work session, that City Council is in favor of staff’s suggestion to reject the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

Mayor Duncan clarified that opinions on this matter were not discussed in the pre-council work session. The work sessions are open to the public, but no one attended.

Mr. Jacques further explained that City Council would not and could not legally consider this proposed ordinance in work session when a public hearing is scheduled. He assured Mr. Degenhart that opinions were not discussed in work session.

Mr. Degenhart asked for clarification on the difference between internally illuminated signs, which are not permitted, and signs with an unilluminated background.

Mr. Jacques explained that the letters that make up the text are lit while the background is not lit.

Mr. Degenhart asked if awning signs that extend into the City right-of-way were previously prohibited.

Mr. Jacques commented that the current Code states that they are not permitted.

Mr. Degenhart stated that even though the Code prohibits these signs, there are some within Oakwood. He asked if the City is just catching up with the sign code rewrite.

Mr. Jacques shared that he cannot explain why the signs were approved in the past, but the Code may have been interpreted that the signs were okay to extend over the sidewalk, but not the street.

Mr. Degenhart shared that he feels that the text amendment is discriminatory to private businesses by only allowing electronic changeable copy signs to churches, government facilities and educational institutions. He believes the electronic changeable copy signs are actually electronic message boards and they would be a stain on the fine fabric of the city and not consistent with the caliber of the Oakwood community. He closed his comments by stating that he is in agreement with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to vote against electronic changeable copy signs.

Mrs. Katie Cassidy, 127 Lookout Drive, shared that she has lived in Oakwood for almost nine years and she loves the community. She feels that electronic changeable copy signs do not preserve the character of residential neighborhoods. She added that the wood sign that was placed at the Shafor Park Tennis Courts is classy and fits better in the residential neighborhood. She believes the electronic signs are a distraction and a safety concern. She also shared that she would like to hear from the Planning Commission members on why they voted against electronic signs.