08/12/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

issued in error appeared to be in conflict with the Sign Code. Appellant claimed he should have the same signing opportunities afforded other buildings even though they were not in conformance with the ordinance. Gist of the Board's decision, Manager said, was that '- existing violations were no reason to allow additional violations of the code. They would have to be addressed as a separate issue. Staff recommended denial of this appeal, taking the position that the city did issue permits for signs. in violation but should not authorize further violations unless the code was amended, and that was not recom- mended. He said every effort would be made to bring other properties into conformance with the code. (0247) Wayne Wagner, owner/manager of Ricketts, said he had contracted with a supposedly reputable sign dealer for installation of the sign on the north side of. the building and had not known it was installed without a permit. He called attention to 13 or 14 other businesses in that area with more than one sign, some having three or four facing one street, and other types of signs which he felt detracted more from the area than the one he proposed for the front of his buildirtg. He said he would not be able to put a sign in his window, and because of the design of the building, identification would be difficult for the public traveling from the south; He .also called attention to competitors' signs in violation of the code and said the five-year amortization period should have been long enough to allow their removal. And there was an existing sign on a building identifying a competitive brand handled by a business no longer operating. He asked permission to install what he felt was a necessary sign on the east face of his building. (0400) Mary Sherriffs, speaking for the League of Women Voters, asked denial of the appeal. e However, they felt it unfair that many nonconforming signs were allowed in the area, especially when some were in direct competition to the appellant. They urged the Council to immediately direct staff to correct the violations and to insitute a more stringent review of the sign permit issuance process to assure equal application. (0430) Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Manager said that it was staff's intention to bring a course of action seeking correction of the sign violations. He added that it should be recognized that the fact a city official issued permits contrary to the ordinance did not make that ordinance inoperative. An inventory of those signs in violation was prepared, those installed with permits and those installed without permits, he said, and recommendations would be brought to the Council with regard to their disposition. . Councilwoman Campbell said she strongly supported the Sign Code and would support the decision of the Board of Appeals to deny Mr. Wagner's request for the second sign. She said it was not her understanding that were would bea five-year amortization period for the signs in violation in that area. Manager replied that no.. time period for conformance had yet been set but he doubted it would be five years because they were not the more ex- pensive, lighted type signs. -- Councilman Hershner agreed that present violations should not call for authorization of further violations. He asked if there' would be administrative problems if the appeal was tabled until recommendations were received from staff with regard to the sign violations in that area. Manager said tabling the appeal would not allow Mr. Wagner to. proceed with the second sign, it would not assist him unless the Council considered amendment to the code. He said if the sign was installed anyway it would be at the risk of having to remove it at some later time when other nonconforming signs had to be removed. Mr: Hershner said his intent by postponing was not to authorize the addi- tional sign, but to know what would be done to resolve the entire problem at one time. Councilman Woodsl1ared that concern. He also asked about the"sign in competition to Ricketts remaining for a business that was not operating. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Wood to postpone the appeal until staff was in position to make recommendations to the Council with regard to proposed action on other signs in the area erected contrary to the code but under permit. ,~ Councilman Williams indicated his inteht to abstain because of conflict of interest. Councilwoman Campbell wondered about the responsibility of the sign contractor.in this, situation. She felt he should be 'aware of the ordinance. 0r if it was installed with - knowledge that it was in violation, she thought the Council should know why the con- tractors were not making their custqmers aware of the regulations. Manager answered that if a permit was issued it would be assumed a sign was legal, and those installing signs without permits could not speak for the entire sign industry. The' circumstances under which the Ricketts sign was installed were not know, he said. He added that staff makes every effort to monitor signs erected in violation and sometimes without permit but because of staff limitations immediate action all the time is not possible. Mrs. Campbell thought the signs in violation were the city's responsibility and compensation should be paid to the people putting them up under permit if necessary to gain immediate conformance. 8/12/74 - 3 1..1b