CC Min 2001-10-22 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

the display. He stated that the law coupled with the necessity to survive and the existing conditions delineated justify an exception to the sign ordinance. Nano Maldonado gave the background to his appeal and stated he has tried to comply with the City and the State regarding the sign. He stated he wants to continue to use the building for the purpose that it was designed. Emie Toth stated his long history with Mr. Maldonado and that his work has been impeccable. Sergio Maldonado stated that in the last 8-10 years, his father has been harassed about his business and asked that his family be treated fairly. Eddie Maldonado stated his father has cleaned up the area where his business is located and the neighbors are pleased. Ed Bailey stated he has not heard anything drastic against the sign and the neighborhood association seemed to agree that Mr. Maldonado should keep the car sales use. He stated that the times residents may have complained about the signs prompted Mr. Maldonado to change the sign. Me. Bailey stated that as a realtor he would note that the business has no access to anybody to advertise and that may have an impact on the resale of the building. M/S Howard/Ira to close the public hearing. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. Council comments included clarification request of the Professional Business Code 5499, need for a consistent policy regarding freeway billboards, and questioned the contention that harassment has occurred. Questions included what the amortization period consists of and whether there are other similar situations in the City. Principal Planner Jany stated the criteria necessary to grant an exception to the sign ordinance as stated in the staff report (page 11.A3) and that the amortization begins at the date of adoption of the ordinance in June 1999 and goes until June 2006. Council Member Jordan stated that she would not be supporting the motion due to her belief that for properties bordering the freeway, there should be a separate policy. She stated she was under the mistaken impression that there was a parallel effort to have a "freeway" ordinance. She further stated that properties bordering the freeway ought to be able to have billboards. M/S Howard/Ira to uphold the decision of the ARC to enforce the Sign Ordinance (therefore denying the architectural permit exception) by amortizing the existing freestanding sign seven years from the adoption of the Sign Ordinance (scheduled removal REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2001 MINUTES PAGE 5 MINUTES Book No. 59 Page No. 36