Planning Commission

Kevin Rudd explained that Staff previously reported to the City Council the challenges that the City has with the current Sign Ordinance in regards to providing a reasonable wall signage for a building. The ordinance worked well in the past because the City has small strip malls. However, the Family Dollar is considering a location in Ivins, and the wall of the building would be 100' or more. At the last meeting the Commissioners discussed some sizes, and Staff advised that they would get some sign designs from the Family Dollar Store. Several designs were presented for the Commissioners to review. Two designs submitted were wall signs. Family Dollar prefers Design (D) (a copy is available at Ivins City office) of which the overall footage is eighty-nine (89') square feet. The current ordinance is substantially smaller. But the design size is proportional to the size of the building. If the size was thirty (30') square feet as per allowed in the ordinance, the sign would be out of proportion with the building.
Staff submitted the following change to the existing ordinance:
Existing Ordinance
The maximum wall sign area, per building facade, shall not exceed:
1. For wall less than 50 linear feet, 30 square feet or 10 percent of the wall area, whichever is less.
2. For walls longer than 50 linear feet and located immediately adjacent to a road or street, 30 square feet, plus one square foot for each 10 linear feet of wall length, or part thereof, in excess of 50 linear feet.
Proposed change:
The maximum wall sign area, pre building facade, shall not exceed one (1) square foot per lineal foot of wall with a maximum area of 100, 120, 150 square feet.
Kevin Rudd advised that the 100 square feet would work for the Family Dollar Store. He asked if the Commissioners wanted to consider making it larger than 100 square feet in the event a larger building comes to Ivins in the future. The proposed change will make it proportional to the size of the building. The rest of the language in the sign ordinance could be left the same. It basically says that it has to be on the wall, it can't go above the parapet and it has to be on a wall that fronts the street.
The design for the monument sign is eighteen (18') feet high and would not work. It's a sign that sits upon a pole. The other monument sign design is 7'6" in height which is 6" over the allowance of the existing ordinance. The Commissioners could consider allowing the monument sign ordinance to be changed to 8'-9'.
Commissioner Anderson commented if the wall sign is 100 lineal feet, it equates to a 10'x10' sign but we have no restrictions on the width if it meets the lineal square footage. His concern was how to proportion the 100 square feet.
The Commissioners reviewed the submittals C (74.75 sq ft) and D (89 sq ft) for width and height.
Commissioner Scott felt Commissioner Anderson was right to bring up the 10'x10' example. When we put a change in the ordinance, who knows what the end product could be. Overall he liked the idea with a 100 foot building having a 100 to 150 square foot sign.
Commissioner Anderson felt there should be some criteria as to why we don't like the signage.
Dale Coulam suggested saying that it's not proportionate to the building.
The Commissioners discussed adding language to state that it has to be proportionate to the building.
Chair Murphy questioned whether they should allow the 150 square feet as a maximum size.
Commissioner Benson stated that at some point it would limit the larger buildings.
Commissioner Anderson felt the sign should be proportionate to the size of the building so that it can be read as they drive by.
Commissioner Benson stated that an 89 square foot sign is sufficient for a 100 foot building but to get the 100 foot sign the building should be at least 100 feet.
Commissioner Scott suggested allowing a maximum size of 100 square feet and adding language that it has to be proportionate to the scale of building style. However, if someone wanted to do a sign that did not meet that requirement, do they have any avenue to approach the City?
Dale Coulam stated not unless it is added to a special exception but at present that is not part of a special exception.
Kevin Rudd advised that the City should allow the company's designers to submit the designs for approval.
Commissioner Benson stated that if a company had a square logo, they might prefer to have a 10' x 10'.
The Commissioners discussed how different sizes could be submitted by a company and how the sizes would look. They were concerned about the height and width of the signs.
Commissioner Anderson noted that if they are bringing in a Conditional Use Permit, what avenue does the TRC Committee have to say that a company needs to go back to the drawing board.
Dale Coulam explained that on a Conditional Use Permit conditions can be imposed that would mitigate adverse impacts to the surrounding area.
Commissioner Scott was okay with a 100 square foot sign.
Chair Murphy was not in favor of changing the monument sign size. She felt that seven (7') feet for the monument sign was a sufficient size.
The Commissioners discussed the existing height of monument signs and decided not to change the height of the monument signs. They agreed to change the commercial signage to a maximum of 100 square feet and leave the language as submitted by Kevin Rudd.

Chair Adel Murphy	AYE
Commissioner Todd Benson	AYE
Commissioner Mike Scott	AYE
Commissioner Lance Anderson	ABSTAIN
Commissioner Jeffrey Loris	ABSENT

Chair Adel Murphy	AYE
Commissioner Lance Anderson	AYE
Commissioner Todd Benson	AYE
Commissioner Mike Scott	AYE
Commissioner Jeffrey Loris	ABSENT

Chair Adel Murphy	AYE
Commissioner Lance Anderson	AYE
Commissioner Todd Benson	AYE
Commissioner Mike Scott	AYE
Commissioner Jeffrey Loris	ABSENT