Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Perrysburg committee advances draft to allow larger internal directory signs, will send code change to council
Summary
City planning staff and committee members discussed a proposed change to the sign code to allow internal directional/directory signs up to 32 square feet and 8 feet high, seeking to balance wayfinding needs for large campuses with concerns about visual clutter and permitting.
City planning staff and members of the Perrysburg Board & Committees discussed a draft ordinance to permit larger internal wayfinding and directory signs for multi-tenant sites such as Mercy Hospital and Shops at Riverplace.
A city planning staff member said the proposal responds to at least five requests from businesses that said current limits are insufficient for larger campuses: “Riverplace has 27 tenants there kind of built back… you didn't know if you should continue going straight, if you should turn right to go to the tenants.”
The proposal would allow directory or directional freestanding signs internal to a zoning lot with a maximum area of 32 square feet and a maximum height of 8 feet (for example, up to 4 feet wide by 8 feet tall). Planning staff and the planning commission discussed distinguishing those interior directory signs from outward-facing freestanding entrance signs that are governed by a separate section of the sign code.
Committee members pressed staff on placement and permitting. One committee member said, “I just worry that having the setbacks could defeat the purpose of those directional signs in the first place,” expressing concern that strict setback requirements would make the signs ineffective. Staff responded that the intention is to keep these signs internal to a property and not to allow them to “attack attention beyond the perimeter of the zoning lot.”
The planning commission signaled support for the draft but asked for clearer permitting criteria and placement standards. After discussion the committee indicated informal consensus to remove a specific reference to a separate permit requirement in the draft and to instead refine the language so the rules clearly separate entrance/frontage signs from internal directional signs. Staff said they plan to split the draft language (for example into an “entrance signs” subsection and an “interior directional signs” subsection) and to work with the city attorney and planning staff to finalize wordsmithing before sending the ordinance to city council.
The committee discussed appeal options if a property owner disagrees with staff placement decisions; staff said applicants could pursue an administrative appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. There were no formal votes recorded during the discussion; members agreed to forward the refined language for council consideration at the next council meeting noted in the packet.
The discussion emphasized balancing two goals: reducing driver confusion on large campuses and limiting visual clutter along public frontages. Staff and at least one property representative (Dave Kinzel) said that while the draft allows multiple interior directory signs based on access points, most properties would likely install only one or two.
The committee asked staff to circulate the revised draft in advance of the council packet so members and interested parties can review the clarified separation between entrance-facing freestanding signs and interior directory signs.
