02/22/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

p , . under $1000.00 dollars. That will mean any vandalism or damage to a sign will necessitate taking down a pole sign or any other sign that is up. The change in use and ownership that was discussed needs some work also. There are a number of situations that can transpire, such as a landlord that owns a building, he sells the building but the tenants don't change, does that mean all the signs for the businesses have to be changed. If he wanted to sell a business to someone but the business would not change just a new owner does that mean all the signs have to change because a new business owner is present. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed. Mr. Asseff questioned if $1,000.00 would be to low what would Mr. Graham suggest. Mr. Graham indicated that he would hesitate to go on record suggesting a price because he had not consulted anyone on that matter. He would think 50% of the valuation of the sign or some number in that area that would substantially change the sign itself. NIr. Asseff indicated that the ordinance state it should be brought into compliance so if a ground sign is vandalized it does not have to be taken down as it is already in compliance. Mr. Graham indicated that if a face of a pole sign was damaged then the pole sign has to come down. Mr. Asseff commented that Mr. Graham indicated that it exceeded beyond pole signs. If a fascia sign is damaged, which exceeds the square footage or coloring or any of the other sections of the ordinance it has to be brought into compliance. There could be two ground signs for example and the new ordinance calls for only one ground sign per establishment. If it is within the 35-foot triangle and the ground sign is vandalized the owner would have to move the whole sign. NIr. Tallon commented that Mr. Graham suggested that $1,000.00 limit was ludicrous and then when asked what would be reasonable, Mr. Graham commented that he would have no idea because he had not consulted with anyone. If that is the case how can Mr. Graham imply a$1,000.00 is ludicrous. Mr. Graham suggested that you could not bring a sign company out to do work for a$1,000.00 or less. They have had work done on their signs and they know the $1,000.00 is too low, what is the fair number he does not know. Mr. Hreha suggested that it would be better to work with percentages as 10 years from now that dollar figure would not be feasible. Mr. Dubelko indicated that the ordinance provided alternatively for a$1,000.00 or 25%, so there is a percentage figure in the ordinance. Mr. Asseff suggested that then it would be if the work exceeded, either one. Mr. Dubelko clarified that it would be if it exceeds the lesser of the two. Mr. Hreha suggested that in 10 years a$1,000.00 dollars could be exceeded by almost any change. Mr. Asseff indicated that the ordinance states the signs present value and questioned if that was synonymous with book value or what ever ledger sheet it happens to be on as a deprecated asset. Mr. Graham indicated that he was referring to replacement costs. Mr. Asseff questioned Mr. Dubelko if that was the intent of the Law Department. Mr. Dubelko indicated that the obvious intention in the language used is present value, but there is an issue there as to whether or not replacement value might be a better choice. Mr. Graham addressed 1163.11 "Removal of signs" it refers to the Building Commissioner being authorized to order the removal, repair or maintenance of any sign which constitutes a nuisance, or which is violative of any provisions in sections 1163.13. That gets into the semantics of what are nuisances and who determines what a nuisance is, that is vague. Mr. Dubelko indicated that under the old sign section the Building Department could go on privet property and remove a sign they thought to be a nuisance. In the new sign code the Building Commissioner would have to go to court and convince a judge that that particular sign was a nuisance. The term nuisance is a legal term of art, and a judge would look for something that poses a series that is a threat to safety or health before he/she would declare a sign a nuisance. Mr. Crraham suggested that 1163.14 "Outdated Signs Prohibited" talk about signs 8