1967 Jan to Dec - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

32 Duke Schneider, of Ad -Art Inc., representing Chailenge Development Inc., described the sign proposed by his clients from illustration and method of computation of the advertising surface area which had resulted in the denial of the sign permit because of being over square footage allowed, and from which appeal was being made. He further described the supporting structure of pro- posed sign especially designed for its aesthetic value and appealed this being included in the method of com- putation, whereas advertising surface area did comply with the square footage allowable by the Sign Ordinance. A further illustration was shown whereby sign would qualify on a single pole with two-sided sign of same advertising area, but which was not felt to be as well designed as that proposed and urged a more lenient inter- pretation of the area computation on sign proposed. Councilman Keckley, Chairman of Sign Committee, reported on the meetings which which had been held by the Committee to review this appeal and how computation according to the present Sign Ordinance held no possible alternative than to recommend denial. He described how sign could be reduced in scale and aesthetic value not be lost. Further discussion held on present Sign Ordinance, its comparison to other cities in area, and questioning whether a variance procedure now lacking in the ordinance would be of advantage in view of future proposed developments which might be making similar requests. Mr. Schneider again stressed fact their appeal based on interpretation of computation and offered their support in seeking an amendment to present ordinance to encourage good design. Councilman Rosselli moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Councilman Keckley and carried. Councilman Keckley moved to approve the action of the Building Official in deny- ing the sign permit, seconded by Councilman Petersen. Councilman Henderson con- curred with recommendation of the Sign Committee and commended their efforts in maintaining regulations. Councilman Bury indicated his interest insuggestion present Sign Ordinance might merit further study along lines discussed and favored approval of this requested sign. Councilman Petersen stated the only way this sign could be approved would be by an amendment to the Ordinance increasing square footage area or by an amendment to allow variance procedure, as this proposed sign clearly not allowable under the present ordinance. Councilman Keckley confirmed point made this case not determined on interpreta- tion of computation but specifically and mathematically set by ordinance. Coun- cilman Keckley also reminded Council that Sign Committee had recently reviewed present Sign Ordinance in connection with appeal by Gemco Stores for their free- standing signs and that Sign Committee had held to restrictions set by ordinance as to height limit in this case. In reply to question, City Attorney advised he was in complete accord with Build- ing Officials denying this sign permit as action complied with the ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote, Councilmen Granger, Henderson, Keckley, Peter- sen, and Mayor Herkner voting yes, Councilmen Bury and Rosselli voting no. (MINUTE ORDER #67-72) APR 24 '67