02/11/1998 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I • ,~ board should approve something when the proposal is inconsistent. Mr. Frye believed the pole sign is a separate issue and advised there are about 200 pole signs in the city. He continued, the businesses have requested that the city negotiate with them to come up with a solution that is beneficial to everyone. Mr. Putper did not understand why this dialog did not take place yeaxs ago, as the businesses have waited seven years and now that it is enforceable they are asking to negotiate. The Law Director advised Mr. Frye is portraying the wrong message as basically he is saying that somehow the ordinance that was passed seven years ago is now: in a state of limbo; should not be enforced; and the city should arrive at some compromise. Mr. Gareau further stated there is nothing before the city to amend, negate, or overturn the sign ordinance that was passed seven years ago and he believed the strategy is it will be ignored Uy some and others will comply. Mr. Gareau noted on this facility the Sunnyside Saturn dealership complied with the ord.inance. Mr. Frye stated he regrets complying with the ordinance as the signage is inadequate. Mr. Gareau advised if Mr. Frye disagrees with the law he can pursue it legally and take it to court. He continued ignoring the ordinance will not accomplish anything. Mr. Frye again stated the pole sign is a separate issue as the proposal is for the bu.ilding signage. Mr. Purper questioned if Mr. Frye understood the boards position as if they grant this variance and leave the pole sign there is going to be problems with the other 199 pole signs in the city. Mr. Frye stated he believed the variance request was reasonable based on what he had before remodeling and the variances granted before remodeling. The Law Director questioned if part of the variance request is for the building signs is based on a total calculation of overall signage which would include the pole sign. Assistant Building Commissioner Ryinarczyk advised the proposed signage does exceed the total signage permitted for a business use, and all signage is included in that calculation. Mr. Frye stated if the sign were lowered to the height of a monument sign, the signage would still exceed the total signage permitted for a business use. Mr. Gareau stated the point is this prohibited pole sign is included in the calculation. Mr. Bizjak explained if they lowered the pole sign and created a pylon sign or a ground sign, the existing cabinets would be used and a base would be formed around it. Mr. Gareau advised assuming that what Mr. Bizjak said is true than the board of zoning appeals would be in a position to determine if they want to grant a variance. Mr. Rymarczyk advised 40 square feet is permitted for free standing signage and they are showing 104 square feet of free standing signage. He stated because there is identification on the directional signs they are considered another pole sign. Mr. Bizjak questioned if the board would approve the other signs and table the pole sign for a six month period. Mr. Kobema stated it is the law as pole signs are prohibited. There is no six month moratorium. Mr. Rymarczyk clarified it is all non-conforming signs, and not just pole signs that have to be removed. Mr. Frye wondered if the proper procedure once he is cited by the city to come before the board and request a variance and if he is turned down for that variance to then pursue legal action. Mr. Gareau stated we have a law which businesses must comply and the city can pursue a case civilly or crimnially. He advised the city decided not to pursue the cases criminally. The building department has been asked to provide the law department with an inventory listing non-conforming signs. The law department, Mr. Gareau advised, would provide each business with a notice that the city plans to litigate this issue and the signs must be removed. If a business failed to remove the signs litigation will result. Mr. Gareau explained just because the litigation process has not started that does not mean the signs for this business conform. Accord.ing to the zoning ordinance every day the non-conforming signs remain, it is a continuing viola.rion. Mr. Frye questioned if the suggestion is to come back before this board and request a free standing sign. Mr. Purper advised the board of zoning appeals has been enforcing the ordinance for more than a year and several businesses have complied with the boards suggestions and installed signs that conform to the code. Mr. Maloney questioned if Mr. Frye would like to take the law directors suggestion and table the proposal until 4