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

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.