02/29/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 the road. If the City is no longer limiting the height then he is not sure why a special provision is needed for stores so far back. Mrs. O'Rourke commented then that is a percentage. Mr. Conway agreed and indicated that he was not sure why the City was crediting a previous part of the code 40% for corner lots. That is giving a corner lot a break by allowing them to have an additional wall sign or around sign facing that side so what is the purpose they should be treated the same as everyone else, the City basis's on frontage so it should be based on frontage. The City is not allowing any signs in a signal family district and he doesn't believe the City should restrict anyone from having a sign stating i.e. Conway's House. There are also cases where residents work out of their homes so why shouldn't _ they be allowed to have a wall name or plate on the structure. Mr. Dubelko suggested that the problem with that would be the City could not dictate who could put it up and what could be on the sign. Mr. Conway remarked that if there was that strong of a feeling to noti having any signs in residential area to the point of not even being able to identify your own home then that would be fine. Mr. Dubelko interjected that the purposed code only provided for temporary signs in residential. He commented that Mr. Conway is right, if the City is going to provide for permanent signs then they have to deal with what kinds of signs they want and would have to make sure they were content neutral. Mr. Spalding commented that then basically then we need to examine the dimensions that are = proposed in the whole code. He questioned if Mr. Conway agreed with him. Mr. Conway indicated ? "yes" that he thinks the City would be better suited to have a graduated maximum square footage. Mr. Dubelko commented that he was not sure that he agreed, because the code is being redrafted in response to a litigation of the first amendment concerns. For the City to start revisiting every square footage determination, things that have nothing to do with first amendment litigation may be appropriate at some time, but not necessarily at this time to just slow down the process of completing this new sign ordinance. There may be some valid things that have been raised with respect to wall signs that Mr. Conway has agreed too, but he doesn't agree with Mr. Conway or Mr. Spaldinc, if they say everything in the proposed code with respect to the amount of signage and dimensions should be o- revisited when that wasn't even involved with the litigation. If in the process of drafting a new code ° the City strays from what was permitted in the past with respect to types of signs, square footage of signs and locations of signs then the City should look at why they strayed. If it was necessary because of the litigation fine, but to simply go back to square one and reexamine every provision in our ordinances providing for regulations of signs regardless if it had anything to do with the litigation or not then the City is unnecessarily taking on a task that wont be able to be accomplished for a very long time. Mr. Spalding disagreed and remarked that he felt now was the time if the City is rewriting the code to make sure that it is livable, reasonable and that it is something that is not going to invite further litigation's and problems. Mr. Dubelko indicated that everyone should keep in mind that currently there was not law regarding signs. Mr. Spalding suggested he understood, but believed that is why they were present to develop a law that everyone can live with, that is reasonable. He doesn't want additional litigation, or for the City to encore additional expense as that would not make any sense. W. Dubelko interjected that it was not a question of passing no law or passing a law that will be around for a thousand years. There is no law in place, there needs to be a sign code in place that all the commissions can agree upon that covers 95% of the problems. The City should not spend 6 months to a year trying to address the other percent that was not a problem in litigation, because they were not a problem from 1991 through 1998. They are only problems now because Mr. Spalding is responding to the Chamber of Commerce looking at everything and saying we have won the first amendment issues, so lets go back and see what we can get that has nothing to do with the litigation or the constitutional issues. Mr. Dubelko remarked that what is.responsible and prudent by the City 5