09/15/1998 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Public Hearing Minutes 9/15/98 ro. nothing about the unconstitutional permitting process or the vague definitions and indefinite standards throughout the sign code. He asked if there is a determination as to what sign area this would apply to. Law Director Gareau answered that the ordinance reads: "Each such business unit or occupant shall have its individual store identification on the permanent pylon or ground identification sign included as part of the maximum sign face area it is permitted under this chapter." For example, if a business has 10 square feet on the pylon sign, that would be deducted from the square footage of their wall sign. Mr. O'Grady said he was under the impression that this ordinance is not in reaction to any lawsuit--that is was a totally separate initiative. Mr. Gareau said he had given that some thought because of Mr. Graham's comments at the previous public hearing. The legislation was introduced on April 7. The lawsuit was filed on April 7 and not received by the city until sometime after this ordinance was introduced. He does not believe this legislation is best characterized as a response to the lawsuit. Roy Garland, 4576 Camellia, asked if his understanding is correct that in order to place any verbiage on a pylon sign or ground sign, the fascia sign has to be reduced. Mrs. Saringer said that was correct. He said that would mean that businesses that are at maximum on their fascia signs would be prohibited from placing their names on the pylon or ground sign. Mr. Gareau noted that might be a situation in which the business could apply for a variance. Law Director Gareau said businesses would have to choose where they want to use up their allotted square footage for signage. Obviously, a variance could be granted if the business could prove a hardship. However, if a business has a very large sign, such as the U. S. Wallcovering sign which is probably the largest sign in the city, is it really a concern if they are not able to put their name on a pylon sign. The whole purpose of this is identification--to help those businesses that are set far back off of the road. There isn't a problem with identification when the business is set 50 foot back and has a 3 foot sign on the building. Mr. Garland said he felt most businesses place a fascia sign at the maximum allowed by law. Some of the businesses at the Great Northern strip mall that are undergoing renovation have found that their signs are not legal under the new ordinance. So they will have to purchase new signs that adhere to the current sign code. It is Mr. Garland's interpretation that the sign ordinance is overly restrictive. The Law Director noted the public hearing was not for the purpose of discussing the sign ordinance or the lawsuit. Mr. Gareau again noted that the optionable relief would be a variance request. Mr. Garland did not like the idea of applying for variances or the costs associated with that. Mr. Gareau said Mr. Garland has presented a problem and he was curious to hear his suggestions for the resolution of the problem. Mr. Garland said he would like to sit down with a committee to discuss the total ordinance. He believes the city is making things more restrictive and the Chamber is trying to come up with things that are less restrictive to the business community. Mr. Garland thinks it is best to leave the fascia signs alone and allow the pylon sign and ground sign to stand on its own merit. Mr. Limpert attempted to clarify that Mr. Garland would like to see that the square footage on "~ the pylon or ground sign did not count toward the fascia sign. He said one of the 2 .,..., .LL... , .. ,,. ,.,..,~ ...r ... -..., ,.., . . x .