Warsaw Nears Temporary Sign Ordinance
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Jennifer [email protected]
The extension for temporary signs in the city would go from 120 days to 180 days per business in a calendar year.
The city originally discussed 90 days.
Monday night was the fourth public hearing for the city’s sign ordinance.
The plan commission will have a final review of the sign ordinance at its Sept. 10 meeting. The city council will review the sign ordinance at its October meeting.
The ordinance proposal states a $15 fee must be paid for each sign permit per calendar year.
No permit fee is required if the sign usage is for a period of three days or less or if the sign usage is by a not-for-profit organization.
“I feel like you’ve got to let the business owner figure out how to advertise what works for them,” Mike Klondaris, commission member, said.
Klondaris suggested allowing two 90-day periods at the business owner’s discretion for temporary signs.
Temporary signs that don’t have permits are in violation of the city’s sign ordinance, said Jeremy Skinner, city planner.
Jim Gast, commission member, asked if the city has received complaints on temporary signage.
Skinner said the city currently has received complaints because the language in the sign ordinance was difficult to differentiate between permanent and temporary signs, but the new sign ordinance is more specific.
Rick Keeven, commission member, said he had concerns with the wire frame temporary signs for advertisements that stay up for extended periods of time in the city.
He said the wind blows over the signs and they don’t look appropriate, and he had concerns of enforcement of temporary signs.
Diane Quance, city councilwoman, asked if the city had spoken with franchise business owners about length of time temporary signs are displayed.
Quance said if the city gets too specific about what the signs are made of, the sign ordinance would become obsolete.
Skinner said some businesses are given free signs to display for promotional events.
Jeff Grose, commission member, said he wants the city to be reactionary on enforcement of the temporary signs.
“I’d like to think there are legitimate business people and if they see what the guidelines are they will follow those,” Grose said.
He said the updated sign ordinance is better than what the city had.
“This is a step in the right direction and I’d like to think we are helping legitimate businesses,” Grose said.
Also during the meeting, the commission reviewed the sign ordinance for general commercial districts.
The ordinance states one sign is permitted per commercial lot that must not exceed 8 feet in height and 32 square feet in area.
Jim Breading, downtown business owner, said he had concerns with the ordinance for commercial lots.
“Why are you sitting on people downtown and letting Walmart and Kmart have signs that are ungodly big?” Breading asked.
Breading said when his business sign deteriorates he doesn’t want to have to come back to the board of zoning appeals and have to get a permit asking for a larger sign.
He said his business sign is 6 by 8 feet, which exceeds the 32-square-foot limit.
“You’re basically handcuffing the local merchant by saying you have to have a small sign when you drive downtown with trees and flowers in bloom and you can’t see wall signs,” Breading said.
Skinner said he will look at Breading’s sign, but thought the dimensions were under 32 square feet.[[In-content Ad]]
The extension for temporary signs in the city would go from 120 days to 180 days per business in a calendar year.
The city originally discussed 90 days.
Monday night was the fourth public hearing for the city’s sign ordinance.
The plan commission will have a final review of the sign ordinance at its Sept. 10 meeting. The city council will review the sign ordinance at its October meeting.
The ordinance proposal states a $15 fee must be paid for each sign permit per calendar year.
No permit fee is required if the sign usage is for a period of three days or less or if the sign usage is by a not-for-profit organization.
“I feel like you’ve got to let the business owner figure out how to advertise what works for them,” Mike Klondaris, commission member, said.
Klondaris suggested allowing two 90-day periods at the business owner’s discretion for temporary signs.
Temporary signs that don’t have permits are in violation of the city’s sign ordinance, said Jeremy Skinner, city planner.
Jim Gast, commission member, asked if the city has received complaints on temporary signage.
Skinner said the city currently has received complaints because the language in the sign ordinance was difficult to differentiate between permanent and temporary signs, but the new sign ordinance is more specific.
Rick Keeven, commission member, said he had concerns with the wire frame temporary signs for advertisements that stay up for extended periods of time in the city.
He said the wind blows over the signs and they don’t look appropriate, and he had concerns of enforcement of temporary signs.
Diane Quance, city councilwoman, asked if the city had spoken with franchise business owners about length of time temporary signs are displayed.
Quance said if the city gets too specific about what the signs are made of, the sign ordinance would become obsolete.
Skinner said some businesses are given free signs to display for promotional events.
Jeff Grose, commission member, said he wants the city to be reactionary on enforcement of the temporary signs.
“I’d like to think there are legitimate business people and if they see what the guidelines are they will follow those,” Grose said.
He said the updated sign ordinance is better than what the city had.
“This is a step in the right direction and I’d like to think we are helping legitimate businesses,” Grose said.
Also during the meeting, the commission reviewed the sign ordinance for general commercial districts.
The ordinance states one sign is permitted per commercial lot that must not exceed 8 feet in height and 32 square feet in area.
Jim Breading, downtown business owner, said he had concerns with the ordinance for commercial lots.
“Why are you sitting on people downtown and letting Walmart and Kmart have signs that are ungodly big?” Breading asked.
Breading said when his business sign deteriorates he doesn’t want to have to come back to the board of zoning appeals and have to get a permit asking for a larger sign.
He said his business sign is 6 by 8 feet, which exceeds the 32-square-foot limit.
“You’re basically handcuffing the local merchant by saying you have to have a small sign when you drive downtown with trees and flowers in bloom and you can’t see wall signs,” Breading said.
Skinner said he will look at Breading’s sign, but thought the dimensions were under 32 square feet.[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092