Suggestions for Changes to the Sign Code

[Admin]

Welcome to the Sign Code Review Committee Online Forum! Please add your comments and suggestions for correction or changes to the City's Revised Sign Code in this area.

[mbrooks]

Section 18.170.090
F. Architectural Light Banding/Wrapping.
I think with lighting changes over the years and LED becoming widely available this should be allowed but managed. If you put some restrictions on the light omitted from this instead of not allowing it at all. If you run this on a photometric model for our stores this doesn’t even show up that is how little the light omitted from this banding is. On the other hand at night this is a safety feature because more often than not the first thing you see when driving is the canopy and the banding would give motor vehicles enough time to maneuver safely in to the lot.

Section 18.170.110
b. Monument Signs
This section talks about sign is mounted on an enclosed, Structural base. This would allow you to put pole signs on a base and call that a monument signs. In my experience with many other cities you want to stay away from pole signs and stick toward signs that have a monolithic look and flow nice with the development. If this is changed we need to look at increasing the overall sign structure sq. footage to be greater than 72sq. ft. With that to there needs to be a minimum sq. footage of street frontage to have a monument sign. I think 150 or 200 sq. ft. would work so you don’t have a monument sign every 75’.
xii. Multi-Tenant Development Sign and xiii. Residential Development I.D. Signs
Have the same rules apply as the monument sign suggested above. This will keep the overall look the same throughout the city having a good monolithic look and nice flow throughout town.
Window Signs inside the building.
This should not have to be permitted but keep an overall sq. footage requirement cap on this per façade or elevation. Once you start taking away advertising from the business that will make the public less likely to stop in town and spend their money in Gardner. They will then spend their money else were when they see the advertisement resulting in a loss of revenue for the City of Gardner.

Section 18.170.130
Non-Conforming Signs
This should be changed to if any sign that is currently not meeting sign code has to come into conformance if any major repairs or the business changes owners/name of business. The way the proposed sign code reads right now in 5 years you will have to hire one person to manage this process. Will you have the man power to complete this?


Overall Review –
When sign codes get to restrictive the less likely you are to have new business move into the area. First off the old business will be at a competitive advantage over the new business. Secondly if the consumer doesn’t know it’s on sale more than likely they will not stop in. In doing this the consumer unfortunately will not stop in on those impulsive buys and spend their money in Gardner if there is nothing driving that impulse factor.
To put it into perspective we have all seen or heard about a town or community putting up a sign saying “please shop here keep your money in the community”. I think that in the growing market in the near future being too restrictive on signs is going to deter business away from the community and I know that is not the intent.

[Admin]

Overall too massive, too intense of regulation to be implemented, needs to be less detailed, less demanding

Need provision for exceptions for different areas of community

Need to identify historical signs
*if name does not change
*if in good maintenance
*to be grandfathered in

Montenum Signs
*landscaping is hard to understand
*have eight new ones here that lot nice with just grass
*don't think planting should be optional because they die in certain places, especially close next to asphalt or sidewalk
*don't like the 2 week restriction, very excessive given time
*place in something about perennials
*shrubs have trouble with heat, snow and ice

Monument Sign
*do we allow granite?
*what style is allowed?

LED or Electronic Signs
*thinks proposed sign regulation is good
*does not like colored, likes red and white/yellow

Abandoned - Non-Conforming
*what if is easy to modified for a new owner, should not be required to abandon complete
*make cost effective

Non-Conforming Signs
*likes historical
*how to handle cost to business
*should make a list of signs that are non-conforming - to save the ones that are maintained
*10 years, maintenance and/or ownerships
*grandfathered needs used
*bring sign for next time

Does not like the pole signs by the highway - should be lower now, change over time

Illumination
*is it necessary to require they turn off lights, does not like

Landscape
*2 weeks needs fix
*conflicts
*pp II is bad
*already in place, grass is fine

Umbrellas
*only in C-1?
*only business name, not Budweiser

[Admin]

I am concerned that the new sign code is not clear if any existing signage will be exempt from the new sign code. I believe the new sign code will be too far reaching if discretion and interpretation is left to the codes administrator. There are just to many items in the code that got a response of “Well I don’t think that is the intention of that item”. I believe the email below shows reason for concern on these topics.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Window Perf
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 08:34:48 -0500
From: Jim Sherman <jsherman@gardnerkansas.gov>

To: Eric Adcock <eric@signhereinc.com>


As present we do not regulate interior signage. It is possible in the
next few months, or years, we may or may not be writing a letter to
Cherry Berry to remove this new signage sign based on adoption of the
new sign code. You do not have to wait for my decision to put up the
signs if they are interior. I just felt it was a good idea to run it by
Amy but she is extremely busy and I don't see an opinion coming before
next Tuesday/Wednesday.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Adcock [mailto:eric@signhereinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 4:24 PM
To: Jim Sherman
Subject: Re: Window Perf

The new sign code is not into effect yet. Is this going to be allowed
under the current sign code. I am wanting to submit this right now.

Thanks,

Eric Adcock
Sign Here Inc.
913-856-0148

On 4/4/12 3:54 PM, Jim Sherman wrote:
> Let me run it by Amy as I'm not sure because the new sign code will
> address this.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Adcock [mailto:eric@signhereinc.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 10:49 AM
> To: Jim Sherman
> Subject: Window Perf
>
> Jim,
>
> My contact at Cherry Berry is interested in having window perf
> installed on her store front windows, similar to what is show in the
attachment.
> She is only interested in having them installed on the two upper rows
> on windows. Is this something that is allowable, and if so, will a
> permit be required?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Eric Adcock
> Sign Here Inc.
> 913-856-0148

[Sponsored content]