02/22/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t . . circumstances. (1) If there is an alteration or modification or change in the sign as a result of reconstruction, repair or restoration and that exceeds $1,000.00 or 25% of the signs present value then the owner is required to bring the sign into compliance with the provisions of the code. In the event of a pole sign that would require replacing the pole sign with something else or eliminating it. Under 1163.B it provides that if the property undergoes a change of use or change of ownership shall be brought into compliance. Mr. Asseff commented that then that would follow, if one has to change the lettering on the sign then it would imply that there is a change of use. Mr. Dubelko indicated that that was not necessarily correct. Mr. Tallon commented that if a tenant just wanted to change the name on a sign it just changes the language not ownership. Mr. AssefF suggested that a lot of the strip centers are own by a partnership and the actual tenants do not own the signs so no matter how often a new tenant comes in under this ordinance each new tenant can chanae the face of the non-conforming sign. Mr. Dubelko remarked that that would be a Dood recommendation to Council to look at rewording it so that it includes changes of ownership and tenants results in a business change in the sign. Mr. Asseff indicated that the current wording was a little too vague. Mr. Dubelko indicated that any time there is any language in an ordinance that one of the commissioners has a realistic concern with, then they should deal with the concern by defining the term. If a term of use is vague then the Law Department can work a definition for the concern. Mr. Asseff suggested adding something that would reflect a change in tenant would also require the sign to come into compliance. NIr. Spaldin- questioned how the new chapter 1163 was formulated, i. e., was a committee devised, or was Council involved in any way or how was it formulated. Mr. Dubelko indicated that the chapter started in the Law Department as all good legislation does. Once the Law Department has written an ordinance it is sent to Council, and by no means does the Law Department expect the ordinance to have been drafted in its final form. The Law Department expects changes as Council, Planning, Building and Engineering Departments and the public add their input and suggestions. Mr. Spalding questioned if the Chamber of Commerce had been included in the revisions. Mr. Dubelko remarked frankly not yet, they have two forums same as every other member of the public has at public hearings. Mr. Asseff questioned if the City indicated that they would appeal the court ruling on the existing sign chapter. Mr. Dubelko indicated that the City had not made a ruling on appealing the case, as the final judgment has not been released. Mr. Tallon opened the discussion to the audience. Mr. Pat Graham, from the Chamber of Commerce came forward. Mr. Graham indicated that he would like to set the record straight on one issue, which has been reported and brought up again tonight, that the litigation was over pole signs. While it is true that that was one of the initial issues Commerce had with the sign chapter, once the Commerce got into the sign ordinance and saw what a bad ordinance it was, their issues at that point were not pole signs but the entire sign ordinance. It is not pole sign litigation and in the fall of 1997 at a public forum the Law Director stated that himsel£ Chamber of Commerce was just provided a copy of the amended ordinance today as were the Board members. The first ordinance that had a first reading would never have passed any body of government so there is not really anything to discuss with that. Commerce commends the Law Department for the new version of the ordinance as it's a lot better than anything they have previously seen in writing. Commerce still has a number of issues with the amended ordinance, while the City would like to get this on a fast track, Commerce would like to get a good ordinance that the business community and the City could together accept and endorse. They would hate to see this Commission, or Council ram- roding something through just for the sake of time. This is too important of an issue and too 6