OCR Text |
Show Centieirvflle Assigns TBn Sogims By GARY R. BLODGETT CENTERVILLE A new sign ordinance restricting res-tricting free-standing signs to a maximum height not to exceed 20 feet and limiting the size of signs attached to commercial buildings was unanimously approved by the Centerville City Council. THE SIGN ordinance has been a long and hotly debated issue for several months and when finally approved by the city council last Tuesday night a major portion of the ordinance was changed. The ordinance was amended in recent weeks to restrict the height of a free-standing sign to only 4 feet which would have made Centerville the most restrictive city in the state for commercial signing. BUT COUNCILMAN Ken Holman opposed this section of the ordinance which had previously been approved by the city Planing Commission. Councilman Council-man Dale Ford sided in with Councilman Holman and later after considerable debate and on a re-. re-. commendation by Mayor Golden Allen the amended portion of the ordinance was torn (literally) from the ordinance. Councilmen Norman Wright and Dennis Knoles approved the motion to eliminate the amendment and to revise the ordinance slightly to allow for freestanding free-standing signs to be erected to a height not to exceed 20 feet. Councilman Robert Arbuckle was absent. HOWEVER, THE council also tightened the ordinance ordi-nance by requiring that all petitions for commercial signs must be approved by' both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. With the adoption of the new ordinance, the city-wide city-wide moratorium on new signs, which has been in effect for the past six months, was also lifted. COUNCILMAN WRIGHT also challenged the ordinance w hich restricts wall signs on the outside of commercial buildings to only 100 square feet. He asked that the ordinance be revised to allow for 100 square feet or three percent of the total w all on w hich the sign is displayed. He withdrew this request later, however, when it was pointed out that another section of the ordinance covers larger buildings more suitably located in an industrial area. The 100 square feet restriction applies ap-plies only to buildings in Centerville's commercial downtown or shopping area. THE AMENDED ordinance, before it was changed and approved, allowed for only a 4-foot high freestanding free-standing sign except when three or more businesses advertised on the same (directional) sign and then the maximum height would be 20 feet. The council questioned Wilford Sommerkorn of the Davis Planning Department, w ho was making the ordinance presentation, about the proposed 4-foot limit for free-standing signs. "IT WOULD make Centerville the most restrictive restric-tive city in the state for signs, even more restrictive than Salt Lake City," he said. Mayor Allen commented. "We certainly don't need that," and the council nodded in agreement. COUNCILMAN KNOLES. who represents the council on the city Planning Commission, said the commission approved the 4-foot high limitation because be-cause they felt that the sign would be attracting motorists on the nearby street and that a larger (highway-type) sign was not needed. But Councilman Holman disagreed. "THE PROPOSED 4-foot high sign would obstruct ob-struct the view of motorists and you would not know you were at the location until too late to make a safe turn." he said. "1 see nothing wrong with existing signs in our city." Councilman Ford said he. too, likes the taller signs better and "they certainly are an asset to the city. We can't restrict merchants too much in their advertising or we'll lose them." THE ORIGINAL ordinance allowed for a committee commit-tee to make adjustment for signs with a height of more than 4 feet off the ground, but the council later agreed that nearly every new business in tow n would be coming to the committee for a variance. "So why not make it a maximum of 20 feet to begin with." suggested Councilman Holman. AND THE council agreed. |