|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
News
Montgomery sign ordinance a detriment? : News : Oswego Ledger-Sentinel : Hometown Newspaper for Oswego and Montgomery, IllinoisMontgomery sign ordinance a detriment?
| Some village board members believe regulations hindering small businesses
| by John Etheredge
| 9/4/2008
|
Some Montgomery Village Board members are concerned the village's sign ordinance might be overly restrictive and hurting efforts to lure new businesses to the village.
"It seems like this (sign) ordinance to a certain point is driving businesses away from this village instead of to it," board member Pete Heinz told his board colleagues during a community development committee meeting last Thursday.
"The sense we are getting as a board is that we are driving businesses out of Montgomery," said board member Lloyd Mattingly.
Heinz and Mattingly offered their comment as board members discussed a sign request from the owner of a new local business.
Village officials have advised the business owner that the ordinance limits the business and others in the village's B-1 zoning district to signs attached to the exterior walls of their buildings or on their awnings.
In addition, the ordinance, revised and adopted by the board in November 2006, prohibits the installation of pole or 'lollipop'-style signs along local streets. In zoning districts where free-standing signs are permitted, the ordinance requires signs to be at ground level and monument-style.
A provision in the ordinance also requires business owners to take down their pole and other non-conforming signs within seven years of the adoption of the ordinance.
Village President Marilyn Michelini told the committee she would like to see the board amend the ordinance to accommodate the needs of small business owners.
"We definitely don't want to turn away any businesses and the small business owner in this economy is really having a rough time," Michelini said.
"I do think we need to review, revise and somehow or the other incorporate language that would help small businesses," she said.
Anne Marie Gaura, village manager, however, questioned the suggestion that the ordinance is proving a detriment to local business growth.
Gaura asked board members to provide her with additional information concerning specific businesses that have chosen not to locate in the village because of the ordinance.
"I'm hearing this generalization and there is only one business I'm aware of that has not gone forward with a project," Gaura said. "I'm not aware of any other businesses and if there are I would really appreciate getting input back from the village board."
"I know there is displeasure," board member Robert Watermann said.
Gaura added, "I would love to have a comprehensive list from all of the board members on any of the businesses and I would love to be able to respond for each one of those particular situations."
Board members agreed to provide Gaura and village staff with lists of businesses adversely impacted by the ordinance.
"I'll take that challenge," Watermann told Gaura. "I'll come back with that."
Watermann added, "I think we need to understand that with the economy the way it is a sign to a small business is their best form of advertisement. That's where I'm coming from. I think we can create something that is attractive yet not degrading to our streetscape. I think we can come up with a compromise."
Steve Andersson, an attorney for the board, said once board members compile their lists he and village staff can review them to see if there is a "common thread" concerning the complaints or concerns with the ordinance.
If the concerns or complaints and the affected businesses are similar, Andersson said village staff may be able to devise an amendment that would apply to those businesses.
Andersson, however, cautioned board members that there is a risk in amending the ordinance.
"The danger is if you loosen this up too much, anyone can put up anything," Andersson said. "If you want to do that again, that's OK, it's up to you (as a board). But you may not want to do that."
Walgreens sign request
prompts discussion
In a related matter, board members agreed to discuss another provision in the sign ordinance which prohibits businesses from displaying electronic, flashing message board signs during an upcoming committee of the whole meeting.
The ordinance does allow businesses to use electronic signs that have the static display of time and temperature.
Last month, board members voted 5-1 to reject a request from Walgreen's for a variance to the ordinance which would have allowed the retailer to put up an electronic message board sign in front of its new store at the northwest corner of Orchard Road and Mayfield Drive.
Board member Denny Lee voiced support for the ordinance as it is currently written.
Lee noted that if the board were to amend the ordinance to allow flashing electronic signs "every bank along Orchard Road" will put one up.
Lee also said the village's plan commission opposed the Walgreens sign request.
Watermann, however, took another view, noting that he frequently reads the messages put up on the electronic message board sign in front of the Walgreens store on Douglas Road. (The sign was allowed to remain in place under a grandfather ordinance in the sign ordinance, but will eventually have to be removed along with other non-conforming signs.)
"I think it is a great marketing tool," Watermann said of the Walgreens sign on Douglas Road. "I look at is from the business side. I'm a sucker for paying attention to that sign. It's an opportunity to improve their sales and, bottom line, it's more sales tax for us."
In addition, Watermann said the village puts its retailers at a competitive disadvantage if they are not allowed to put up signs similar to other retailers in neighboring communities.
Michelini suggested the village could allow businesses to have electronic message board signs, but restrict their use to no flashing lights or scrolling messages.
"I just don't want to drive down Douglas or Orchard Road and have it look like a casino," Mattingly said.
As a potential compromise, Andersson suggested the board could consider permitting businesses to have electronic message board signs, but limit their use to static messages.
"In other words, you can't change the text more than once a day," he said. "Then it becomes a (message) board that is still solid and illuminated."
Jane Tompkins, the village's community development director, advised the board that such a provision might prove difficult for the village to enforce.
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
