Laserfiche WebLink
PlanningandZoningCommissionRegularMeeting <br />September4,2014 <br />Chapter106ProposedRevisions <br />nonconforming lots of record, unless said change in use or occupancy as well as "tenant and/or <br />occupant" is first submitted to the planning director for review. The planning director shall review <br />said proposed change in use or occupancy, for purposes of insuring maximum compliance with <br />this division chapter, taking into account the particular restraints imposed by the degree of <br />nonconformity of said nonconforming lot of record. The director’s review shall include, but not and <br />be limited to required parking, loading, vehicular access, landscaping, setbacks, utility availability, <br />parking lot surfacing for required parking, dumpster enclosures, and other requirements as <br />imposed by this division Chapter. <br />Decisionsoftheplanningdirectormadepursuanttoprovisionscontainedinthissectionaresubjectto <br />appealtotheboardofadjustmentasprovidedin(Appealstoboardofadjustment)of <br /> section 106-89 <br />thischapter. <br />Section106874,paragrapha.4,Onpremisessigns(freestandingsignsintheMainStreet <br />District): <br />ThisitemisthesecondtopicwherestaffandtheSubcommitteeķźķƓ͸Ʒreachanagreementat <br />st <br />thetimeoftheAugust21PlanningandZoningCommissionmeeting.Thissectionofthecode <br />providesanallowanceformonumentstylegroundsignsintheMainStreetDistrict. <br />TherecommendationbytheSubcommitteewastostrikeoutthoseprovisionsforfreestanding <br />signsintheMainStreetDistrict.Thereasonforthisrecommendationisbecausethedesiredsign <br />inthedistrictshouldbebuildingmountedbecausetheproposeddesignguidelinesrequirenew <br />buildingswithintheMainStreetOverlaybebuiltuptothefrontpropertyline.Staff <br />recommendedthatlanguagebeincludedallowingforfreestandingsignswithintheMainStreet, <br />andwasconcernedthattherewereexistingstructuresintheMainStreetOverlaywhere <br />buildingaresetbackfromthefrontpropertyline.Stafffeltthatlargepolesignsfortheseareas <br />ofsignificantbuildingsetbackswerelessdesirablethanthesmallermonumentsigns. <br />StaffandtheSubcommitteecametoagreementonthisissue.Theagreementwastoprovidean <br />allowanceforafreestandingpolesignforthosepropertiesalreadyexistingintheMainStreet <br />Districtthatareexistingandsetbackfromthefrontpropertyline.TheSubcommitteeis <br />recommendinglimitingthatsignfacetobeamaximumtotalareaof24squarefeetinsizewitha <br />minimumof10feetfromthebottomofthesignandamaximumof14feetfromthetopofthe <br />sign.Thiswouldallowforsmallerpolesignsasopposedtomonumentssigns. <br />ThefollowingisanexcerptfromSection106874oftheCodeofOrdinancesshowingthe <br />proposedlanguage: <br />Sec. 106-874. On-premises signs. <br />Paragraph (a.4) <br />Any new on-premises freestanding signs, which shall only be permitted on those properties <br />where a building is already existing and is setback from the front property line, shall be a <br />monument or ground sign that does not exceed eight feet in width and height from the ground to <br />the top of the sign is a minimum height of 10 feet from the bottom of the sign and a maximum <br />height of 14 feet to the top of the sign and cannot exceed 24 square feet in area. (Note: In <br />accordance with section 106-878(b)(2), sign not exceeding eight feet in height do not have to be <br />engineered.) <br />2 <br /> <br />