HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-11 Chair-Jim Kremer Comments Handout rrl
5--,
Signs of Oak Park Heights pt0'.u"un
n
When I first received and read the packet for tonight's meeting I thought surely this was
a full employment plan for attorneys and city planners. However, on reading Mr.
Richards' memo for a second time I realized the goal was to, as he said, "make our
regulations easier to interpret and to implement. Ideally we should work to implement
regulations that do not require as many variances as we have utilized in the past."
With the above in mind, it seems to me that we should actually stand back and take a
cold hard look at our present code and ask ourselves if it any longer serves the
purposes for which it was implemented. Our present definitions of and regulations for
signs are three times longer than the Constitution of the United States. Does that make
sense? Or, does it make sense for us to have sign ordinances that mirror cities that
are seven to thirteen times larger than we are?
In addition, it seems to me that the foundations upon which the sign code is built are
faulty at their core. The city's "Findings" are little more than statements of opinions with
no real documentation. One wonders if these are truly findings for Oak Park Heights or
merely taken form the great sign manual in sky.
The city's "Purpose and Intent" is similarly flawed. Such purposes as "to promote the
public health, safety and welfare" and "improve the aesthetic environment" are, at best,
vague. There is no real, specific and identifiable connection between the purposes
identified and the specific codes that are established.
These foundational shortcomings for our code show up over and over in the code itself.
Several examples will suffice:
• "Signs . . . may only be illuminated during business hours, or until eleven o'clock
(11:00) PM, whichever is later." (i, p. 10) Where is there a finding that allowing
signs to be lit beyond that time affects public health or the aesthetic
environment? Do people really get sick from driving by a lighted sign at
midnight?
• "Signs with external lighting shall have no exposed sources or fixtures unless
decorative fixtures are utilized and the light source is fully concealed and
diffused." (j, p. 10) Is that a public safety issue? Aesthetics? Whose?
• "No more than three (3) flags may be displayed outside of a building." (n, p. 10)
Once again, public safety? Aesthetics? How? Why? Connection?
We have, I believe, 33 pages of signage-mumbo-jumbo about everything from watts to
nits and balloons to bannerettes that are supposed to cover every possible example in
every conceivable circumstance; but, because of their over specificity and lack of sound
philosophical underpinnings they cover virtually no circumstance in the real world and
thus the constant need for variances.
•
I think there is a better way for us to deal with signs in our community. I think we should
begin with a definition of "sign" that all can agree to and that makes common sense,
perhaps the one from the dictionary. Merriam Webster's on line dictionary defines a
sign as:
a piece of paper, wood, etc., with words or pictures on it that gives information
about something; something (such as an action or event) which shows that
something else exists, is true, or will happen. . . .
Once we have defined what a sign is we need to ask ourselves what kind of community
we wish to have and how signs fit into that vision? What purpose do we want signs to
serve and what pitfalls do we want to avoid? This is informational gathering from public
input and actual research. In short, we come up with findings of specific facts. For
example, we might wish to promote a community that has few traffic problems. If that is
the case we then must discover how is it that signs play a role in making that happen or
in keeping it from happening.
Put another way, using objective data we come up with guidelines against which any
sign, no matter the size, no matter the nits, no matter the whatever, can be evaluated.
These would be objective standards based on our underlying philosophy and findings.
All of this should take no more than several typewritten pages in simple English that all
could understand and easily abide by.
Kremer
C ems - �� �