[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6240853,"mediaKeyId","3317848-369e4a6cac80069229c6cddf555935ce","parentId",3317848,"title","Stow draft sign rules: smaller wall signs, newer electronic‑message rules and an optional master sign plan","audioSeconds",2157,"startMs",3060474,"endMs",5218223,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3317848-369e4a6cac80069229c6cddf555935ce&start=3060&end=5218","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3317848-369e4a6cac80069229c6cddf555935ce/thumbnail_3060474.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6240853/Stow-City/Summit-County/Ohio/Stow-draft-sign-rules-smaller-wall-signs-newer-electronicmessage-rules-and-an-optional-master-sign-plan","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6240853-42d8b39a76ea401bf4d238690e78bb35/orig.mp4?Expires=1773774212&Signature=bD~b~Rnp8WASmQflaJQJXCgqvBFm434iNP0jOAVB7Q0GNdw64RysqpLouFXG-j27mp0xWUsF9CDwdacKd6P6XOT6AE6yZEaU0uHIMCHxSWKmUBPpL2kgk61LLNGByxBZopFrxbyGdlkKQpTJNqEgxsRrsaurJUty1Np7zODpYCsMoy~Jg030D4iyHm1qRx-5kxKteCbMMWqCHB~AoTjBr24Fzkk0qGE6KuxORw-y~8hSNrgLwyN2XRB~uk1LqfbsKd073weBkYOOdg21IwygCBagUaXA1doTOj6SvoZ5ueFjmeGII0Bd4a9d927igps6HIDyCIyHVbeSA27pGPQpTA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Stow, OH ","date","2025-05-15T15:07:36Z","article","Stow City planning staff and the consultant team presented a comprehensive redraft of sign standards that would change how sign area is calculated, withdraw allowance for new cabinet signs, update electronic‑message-board rules, and create an optional master sign plan process for coordinated signage on large or multi‑tenant properties.

Consultant Jackie (project team) said the code rewrite seeks to improve the city's visual character, reduce driver distraction, and simplify enforcement. The draft offers a choice: regulate sign types and sizes by land use (the city’s current approach) or regulate by district to reflect pedestrian-scaled downtown areas versus highway-oriented commercial corridors; the consultant recommended district‑based differentiation and requested feedback.

Key proposed changes
- Cabinet signs: New cabinet signs would be prohibited going forward; raceway-mounted individual letters and higher-quality fixed-letter signs would be allowed.
- Wall-sign area: Drafts discussed reducing maximum wall-sign area; staff suggested a cap near 7.5% of wall area (the figure approximating current practice) and offering limited additional allowance for high-quality, fixed‑letter signage.
- Monument signs: Proposed maximum monument sizes discussed were 25 square feet for residential uses, 50 square feet for commercial/mixed‑use/public institutional, and 75 square feet for industrial/automotive uses, with a maximum height generally at 8 feet.
- Electronic message boards: The draft would allow electronic message boards as part of monuments for single‑tenant and multi‑tenant sites and increase the permitted electronic area to 50% of the allowed sign area (current code 33%) to reduce the number of variance requests. Messages must be static while displayed, transition instantly (no scroll or dissolve), and cannot change more often than once every 10 seconds. The requirement that electronic faces be surrounded by a 12‑inch masonry border would be removed (staff said that masonry requirement prompted frequent variances).

Master sign plan and administration
The draft proposes an optional master sign plan process that functions like a signage-focused planned-development template: an applicant would submit a coordinated sign program (types, sizes, materials, colors) and, if approved, individual signs on the property would be permitted based on the master plan rather than seeking separate variances. Staff sought feedback on whether master sign plans should be optional for any development or required for large nonresidential properties, and whether approval should be by the planning director (administrative) or by the plan commission (quasi‑judicial). Several commissioners favored allowing the planning director to approve small deviations but routing larger deviations or requests that exceed a modest percentage (for example, 5%) to the plan commission.

Enforcement and prohibited signs
Staff and commissioners discussed common noncompliant elements in the current landscape (feather/flag signs, inflatables and other temporary attention devices). Commissioners suggested a pragmatic approach to avoid an unenforceable free‑for‑all: set size, quantity or time limits for these devices or allow them under temporary permits with a fee rather than ban them outright. Staff agreed to draft standards that balance aesthetic goals with practical enforcement.

No formal actions or votes were taken. Staff will return a revised sign chapter that incorporates feedback on percent caps, electronic‑message specifics, master sign‑plan thresholds and administrative review limits before public outreach and the adoption process.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Stow - Zoning Code Update Steering Committee Meeting - May 14, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A proposed rewrite of Stow’s sign chapter would prohibit new cabinet signs, tighten wall‑sign limits while rewarding higher‑quality signage, permit larger electronic-message areas (up to 50% of sign area), and create an optional master sign plan process for coordinated signage on larger properties.","taxTitle","Stow City, Summit County, Ohio","taxId",55000,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6240858,"Draft access-and-mobility rules would tighten driveway spacing, right‑size parking and require trail easements",1686,1369255,3055593,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3317848-369e4a6cac80069229c6cddf555935ce&start=1369&end=3055","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3317848-369e4a6cac80069229c6cddf555935ce/thumbnail_1369255.jpg","/articles/6240858/Stow-City/Summit-County/Ohio/Draft-access-and-mobility-rules-would-tighten-driveway-spacing-rightsize-parking-and-require-trail-easements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6240858-33ad930bf3a6789190f54142d158cf7a/orig.mp4?Expires=1773774212&Signature=PAsbH6d3EzpTOk0oZTr0zm1h2gTPkqzexWVswNrJ2zKHajXaFPPSJMlhMqrC3jZpDTNUnB7b-xg14VMGqzEsEcrdYg8nI22g-eoQfqlMFf~YVqbNNO459Y-zemBwNw1eF2BdwdpnDcjuQfBCW4c0Fk8an6flr0KwQ9LWbbWxMusqoH84bNL69NCvH-lOIMtpcj3165pRLAGkeFReJaNrTsANKyAa2aKucMJbCDmIJBedkWwpXVSlu516cOUo4NaybS~d0Y~zzYxFujYhYnyHYbHYLrAe~YHo7xerFGsAi27bR3g937NYkf697PcV44oNajdjPIGOUb36ZPW3CCSfsA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Stow City planning staff and the consultant team presented proposed revisions to the access-and-mobility chapter that would change driveway access rules, introduce internal access-drive standards for large developments, require trail easements when a planned trail crosses a development site, adjust off‑street parking minimums, and add bicycle-parking and loading-location standards.

Consultant Jackie (project team) said the draft aims to create a more multimodal, human-scaled transportation environment that accommodates pedestrians and reduces unnecessary vehicle miles traveled while still providing safe access and circulation for vehicles and service trucks.

Driveways and internal access drives
Jackie said corner or through lots that front both a higher-classification roadway (for example, an arterial) and a collector would be required to take driveway access from the lower-classification street to reduce turning movements on arterials. The draft proposes a maximum driveway width of 30 feet or 30% of lot width, with an administrative adjustment available when larger widths are warranted for truck access or safety reasons. Jackie and staff also proposed minimum separations between driveways based on the classification of the fronting roadway.

For large developments, the draft adds internal-access-drive standards for sites that include more than 200 parking spaces. The standards distinguish a primary internal drive (the connector from the street into the development) and secondary internal drives (that distribute traffic to parking areas) to improve internal circulation and pedestrian safety.

Trails and pedestrian walkways
The draft would require developers to provide a 30-foot public trail easement and construct a planned trail aligned with the city's connectivity plan when a planned trail traverses a site. As an alternative, a developer could provide payment in lieu of construction and grant a 50-foot easement for the city to build the trail later. Commissioners questioned whether the 30-foot and 50-foot easement widths were excessive for an 8-foot paved trail; staff said engineering and parks will be asked to reassess the widths and that an administrative adjustment could be provided when site constraints apply.

The draft also proposes pedestrian-walkway requirements on sites to connect buildings, parking areas, internal drives, transit stops and public sidewalks. Administrative adjustments would be allowed where topography or natural resources prevent full compliance.

Parking, bicycle parking, and loading
Jackie presented a proposal to move parking minimum calculations to a square-footage basis and, in many cases, to lower minimums. Examples discussed during the meeting included reducing multi‑family minimums from 2.5 spaces per unit to 1.5 spaces per unit, restaurant minimums from 1 space per 50 square feet to 1 per 250 square feet, and some industrial/major-manufacturing minimums from 1 per 400 square feet to 1 per 1,000 square feet. Jackie said administrative adjustments to minimum parking could be approved for site-specific factors (tree preservation, proximity to transit, shared-use lots, small \"efficiency\" units, or a parking study showing less demand).

Several commissioners expressed concern about reducing required parking for single‑family and duplex dwellings because on-street parking problems already affect snow plowing, school-bus access and emergency vehicles. Staff suggested exempting single‑family and duplex units from eligibility for administrative reductions—i.e., continue to require at least two spaces per unit for those dwelling types—and agreed to consider that change in the revision.

Bicycle parking requirements would apply to new multifamily, mixed‑use and nonresidential development and were proposed at one bicycle space per 20 off‑street parking spaces up to a maximum of 10 bicycle spaces per lot, to be located on the same lot within 50 feet of a building entrance and visible from the street.

Loading areas would be encouraged at the interior side or rear of buildings and sized so truck movements do not obstruct parking or spill into public streets. Commissioners asked that industrial areas be allowed practical flexibility when site or operational needs make front loading unavoidable and requested screening standards where loading faces public streets.

No formal votes were taken. Staff will revise the chapter language to reflect the commission's feedback (including potential exemption of single-family and duplex uses from parking reductions, reassessing trail-easement widths with engineering and parks, and clarifying loading location and screening). The revised chapter will be returned for final review before public outreach.","Planning staff and consultants proposed new access-and-mobility rules that would steer driveway access away from arterials, limit driveway widths, require internal-access-drive standards for very large developments, mandate trail easements or payment-in-lieu where a planned trail crosses a site, and lower many minimum parking ratios while allowing administrative adjustments.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":79,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6240864,"Stow planners propose shorter residential street segments, new conservation subdivision option",1276,92610,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3317848-369e4a6cac80069229c6cddf555935ce&start=92&end=1369","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3317848-369e4a6cac80069229c6cddf555935ce/thumbnail_92610.jpg","/articles/6240864/Stow-City/Summit-County/Ohio/Stow-planners-propose-shorter-residential-street-segments-new-conservation-subdivision-option","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6240864-2732b9030d757c07b5e6b11c3bfe4084/orig.mp4?Expires=1773774212&Signature=iyGp8PGgHBZmykrttzDEDqcgDqpE0~1fl6E15JkLnv7QjxAb3TtNAk3ZO3z72cA6dC6zxGqEtKYbhTtrdVuZKGN1KLvk5GZlibp1NcKw3wc-iWrP89wwsFoj9TiGOm26BKqvF~wxeH-doCYyoTWZA0eNhPXzvcljH7DCtpMwazYLM8R0yXQ-yWCZR5enc7xt~eSiVV~yBI2nIjoHmdClSxVYa1FI1~28K9HBYgw-r69TWAJwJrU9eTCyIouERd0GLwaDEpWiw0g2cee9ySk7b5lbWhMrISoMGJqEZBso-YQxsirwsGanBAumr97JxZQ~Xc9xvvHNQgu5gZ~FiKvEkg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Stow City planning staff and the project consultant presented draft changes to the subdivision chapter of the zoning code that would shorten allowable street segment lengths in new major subdivisions, clarify temporary roadway-stub rules, and add an optional conservation-design subdivision that requires permanent protection of at least 30% of a development site.

Planners said the revisions are intended to increase neighborhood connectivity and walkability while preserving environmental resources and ensuring new development connects to city services.

Consultant Jackie (project team) told the commission the update would replace the term \"blocks\" with \"street segments\" to reduce confusion and would set a proposed maximum length for residential street segments at 1,000 feet and a proposed minimum length at 350 feet. Nonresidential street segments would carry a proposed maximum of 1,800 feet and a minimum of 600 feet. Jackie used Bradford Way (about 1,400 feet between Goodland Drive and Mayflower Lane) and Eastham Way (about 1,000 feet between Miles Standish Lane and Carver Lane) as examples. Jackie said the changes would not affect existing streets but would govern new major subdivisions going forward.

The consultant and staff discussed Miller's Landing as an example: the segment between North River Road and Paper Street North is roughly 1,700 feet and would become nonconforming under the proposed residential maximum of 1,000 feet. Commissioners and other attendees raised concerns that requiring a connecting street or temporary turnarounds at the 1,000-foot threshold could significantly alter previously approved plans. Jackie said applicants could apply for a variance or an administrative adjustment in constrained or environmentally sensitive situations.

The draft also clarifies temporary turnaround standards for roadway stubs (the draft previously referred to these as temporary cul-de-sacs) and proposes an administrative adjustment if no viable location to stub a road exists—for example, where wetlands or other protected natural resources make a stub infeasible. The consultant noted the original text referenced the Ohio Fire Code for turnaround standards; a commissioner said the Ohio Fire Code addresses building elements rather than roadway turnarounds and recommended referencing the city engineer or the local fire department for vehicular-turnaround standards. Staff agreed to correct that reference.

A new optional subdivision type, conservation design, was presented as a tool to allow clustering of residential dwellings in R-1, R-2 and R-3 districts in exchange for permanently protecting at least 30% of the development site through a conservation easement or other legal mechanism. Under the proposal, conservation-design developments would not be subject to standard lot-area or width requirements (so clustering could be used), but minimum setbacks and a cap on how much density increases are permitted would remain. Jackie noted current base densities in the existing code: R-1 (2 dwelling units per acre), R-2 (3 du/acre) and R-3 (10 du/acre), and said the draft offers density increases as an incentive for the conservation-design option; she did not state the proposed numeric increases during the meeting.

Commissioners and staff discussed alternative incentive structures (for example, a stepped approach that would allow clustering with smaller open-space requirements or provide differing zoning concessions depending on the percentage of permanently conserved land). One commissioner suggested allowing a lower conservation percentage (for example, 15%) to permit clustering but with smaller or no density increases; Jackie said that was a possible approach staff would return with for review.

No formal motions or votes were taken at the meeting; staff said the chapters will be revised with the feedback received and returned for final review before public outreach and adoption steps.

Next steps outlined by staff include moving to the approval-procedures chapters (administration, nonconformities, definitions) and preparing final draft diagrams specific to Stow for the full code package.","Stow City planning staff and the project consultant presented draft updates to subdivision standards that would shorten residential street segments, clarify roadway-stub requirements, and add an optional conservation-design subdivision that requires permanent protection of at least 30% of a site.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6240848,"Floodplain chapter carried forward; definitions and administrative procedures consolidated elsewhere",200,5469885,5670665,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3317848-369e4a6cac80069229c6cddf555935ce&start=5469&end=5670","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3317848-369e4a6cac80069229c6cddf555935ce/thumbnail_5469885.jpg","/articles/6240848/Stow-City/Summit-County/Ohio/Floodplain-chapter-carried-forward-definitions-and-administrative-procedures-consolidated-elsewhere","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6240848-218c50e3efa320b4fee3d9e72e822c55/orig.mp4?Expires=1773774212&Signature=jyQ8dfLusTi0HeAbRIeenv6OHrR493rQlxjRIhMfIKWFqSnXZ-0BZfSIOYxTOeg01vWYbq5K5xEmMmFGanKbC~97BUXsfykPM7-wSU4h3YqdPsjWTRQJBwPgm~iQKzsX0xPFQ4bqw1Q8~cKtNq~eAOFNd2gS398ixKKZIoZLE0S1-tMFSPvlU0FoMWMTln1rhkj2MSlX4SwD8CTWoXWcT2vCk7HFL7IyT1YPMqmTbKSPNLVdjrluluGvlq8dm60jNMP2bxRXMSf3B5HjSbHytg4tnCjyUhauJdplZ8524xxZzBtmU6Olbm7gSKWuZGk4TihvwYOghQdPTfKDNK7KWA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Stow City planning staff reported that the floodplain development standards (chapter 11 in the draft code) are being carried forward with no substantive changes. The only proposed edits are administrative: move definitions into the consolidated definitions chapter and relocate procedural language into the administrative chapter to improve code organization and usability.

Staff noted the City Engineer serves as the floodplain administrator and that the existing standards align with state and federal floodplain guidelines. The engineering department reviewed the chapter and recommended only minor language cleanups; no policy changes were proposed.

Commissioners had no substantive changes to the floodplain standards at this meeting. Staff said the chapter will be included in the final code package that will be revised for clarity and then presented to the commission before public outreach.

No formal vote was taken.","Staff presented the floodplain development chapter with no substantive changes; definitions will move to a common definitions chapter and administrative procedures will move to the administrative chapter. Engineering staff will continue to administer the chapter and standards remain aligned with state and federal guidelines.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Stow draft sign rules: smaller wall signs, newer electronic‑message rules and an optional master sign plan

Draft access-and-mobility rules would tighten driveway spacing, right‑size parking and require trail easements

Stow planners propose shorter residential street segments, new conservation subdivision option

Floodplain chapter carried forward; definitions and administrative procedures consolidated elsewhere