5/7/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F, MAY '71996 BOOK 64 F";F 3P3® Peter Robinson, developer of Laurel Homes, commented that Laurelwood was mentioned as having an excellent sign, but interestingly, it violates the ordinance. He expressed concern about the provision that prohibits more than one sign at an entrance as he wanted people coming from either direction to be able to locate his subdivision, and he did not feel it is objectionable just to have the name of a subdivision on both sides of a wall. Mr. Robinson then noted that the ordinance allows flags for all but for-profit organizations. However, firms such as McDonald's and Piper have their own company flags, and he felt this serves to build up the spirit of an organization. Also, in regard to political signs being 4 x 4 because it is easy to cut plywood to that size, Mr. Robinson noted that signs for residential subdivisions have to be 24 sq. ft, so you have to cut 2' off the plywood. He did not believe aesthetics would be affected by making this 32 sq. ft. instead of 24 sq. ft. Director Keating did not feel staff would have any problem revising 8 a. iii, on Page 15 to permit one sign on each side of a subdivision entrance, but in regard to for-profit type flags, he explained that the whole concept was that 'if you are regu- lating size of signage, the people who have to be regulated were looking at keeping others from getting around this with large flags and that is why commercial for-profit type flags were restricted. Discussion followed in regard to 32 sq, ft. as opposed to 24 sq. ft. sign for residential subdivisions, and Planner Challacombe noted that essentially those signs are for model homes in existing neighborhoods. He felt even 24 sq. ft. is large and preferred to reduce this to 16 sq. ft. The next subject discussed was temporary constructions signs such as at the Jail site. Administrator Wright believed there are some federal regulations requiring signs if grant funds are involved, and he believed these would supersede. 44