09/08/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. lieuallen noted agreement with Mr, Obie. There should be as little legislation as possible regarding judgments of artistic works. If a more specific but more lenient definition were adopted, signs would be treated . differently from murals. He feels staff would be in a stronger position in dealing with what is not a mural. Ms. Smith asked if the ordinance could be redrafted to include what would be unacceptable as part of a mural. Mr. Haws noted that with the staff definition it is not clear as to what a mural is, and Ms. lannom's definition does not restrict a mural unless it meets specific criteria. The council must decide if it wants to allow almost anything or be more restrictive. Mr. lieuallen stated that people should be given the greatest latitude at this time. This item could be brought back to the council later if it did not work, Ms. Decker stated that the definition in the proposed ordinance indicates that objects could not be used in murals that draw attention to the business. The attorney.s definition is not as restrictive. Mayor Keller asked how many'graphics were a problem during this last year, Ms. McDonald st~ted that some graphics have gone up as murals and have later been determined to be signs. Five or six may go up within a year but at present there is only one that is non-conforming. In cases of non- conformance, the graphic would have to be removed, altered, or reduced to conform to the Sign Code requirements. Ms. Schue asked if the present non-conforming graphic would be considered a sign under Ms. lannom's definition. Ms. McDonald responded that it is definitely a sign. Ms. Schue asked if it contai ns a trademark. Ms. McDonald responded that it is a graphic of the service. Ms. Schue asked what would make it a sign e under Ms. lannom.s definition. Ms. McDonald responded that it would not be a sign under Ms. lannon's definition but would be under the staff's definition since it draws attention to a service or product. Ms. Smith stated that she would suggest defeating the motion and asked the staff to redraft the ordinance including statements as to when a mural is not a sign. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney.s Office, stated that the alternative definition could be used by amending the ordinance rather than redrafting the ordinance. Ms, Smith asked if the amended definition would be the one contained in the memo from John Franklin. Mr. Sercombe stated that it was and that the word 1I0rll should be inserted between clause (a) and clause (b). Mr. Haws stated that he does not like the revised version of Ms. lannom's definition, The only restriction with this definition pertains to trademarks, etc. He would prefer the original staff proposal. Ms. Schue stated that under Ms. Lannom.s definition, a body shop could put up a picture of a car and under the staff definition, they could not. Ms. Obie suggested passing the ordinance with he wording in the attorney's memo. e 9/8/80--6