City sign ordinance greeted with opposition

A proposed sign ordinance would limit city businesses to three signs within three feet of the store window. Cheap-Smoke Tobacco Outlet on North Chancery Street is among the businesses that would have to make changes if the ordinance is passed.

One area on the ordinance that stirred controversy is a 50-foot requirement between each monument-style sign made of brick outside businesses and limiting that sign to 6 feet tall and 32 square feet. The monument-type signs are different than the tall signs on poles that a number of local businesses have.

With some businesses so close together, the monument sign restrictions would prevent some closely spaced businesses from each having a sign. One building with several businesses would have to share a sign, ?Which just won?t work,? said Steve Davis, owner of Davis Signs.

Restricting businesses to three signs maximum ? which includes signs within the business that are within three feet of the window ? is also very limiting, business owners said. Restricting the number of signs could take away advertising for the business.

The question brought a quick response from Mayor Royce Davenport who said, ?That?s what the problem is. We are trying to find some way for everyone to advertise but still be attractive as far as size and without blocking any body else. If we don?t, they could put a sign as big as they want and you won?t be able to see the business next door.?

When it comes to limiting the number of signs in windows, esthetics of the area and safety are the main concerns, as some businesses have their windows covered with signs, ?Which is unsightly,? said Planning Commission chairman David Marttala. ?If there were an emergency call, the police can?t see in so they are going in blind.?

The ordinance would limit the signs in windows to no more than 25 percent of the window.

The ordinance would lead to trouble with enforcement warned Davis who said, ?It would be a nightmare. You will have to have people running into each business making sure everyone is within the ordinance.?

There was only one suggestion on how to fix any of the above-mentioned problems ? handling sign requests on a case-by-case basis.

This idea is one the Planning Commission did not like with Marttala saying, ?Who?s going to decide what?s OK and what?s not? We could put someone in charge of that but without guidelines for them to go by, you risk favoritism. That?s why we need this ordinance.?

By the end of the meeting, the commission had several things to consider regarding perceived problems with the ordinance but no real solutions.