posted
The February issue of Sign Business contains an article from Rick Williams (Rick's Sign Company, Longview, Texas) that describes EXACTLY what type of situation to watch out for when entering into the task of writing or re-writing your code.
Unlike what he describes in the article, I was asked early-on to participate in this deal. In fact, there were THREE sign people involved in the earliest group.
When I attended the first meeting, I found out that the main body of the group (not sign people) had already met 2 or 3 times. They had come to a point where not knowing what to do or what to write or what was right, they supplied themselves with disposable cameras and gave themselves the task of going out to take picture of signs that they liked and signs that they did not like... have the pictures developed and bring them back to the group to compare. What a mess. People with opposing opinions took pictures of the exact same signs. HA. I could see that this would take a couple more meetings at least.
That was in 2000.
Now, it finally comes down to the city council tomorrow night... or does it? With the help of the International Sign Association, the internet, Letterville and the big stick up my rear end, I'll make one last attempt to resolve a couple of issues or at least open a few eyes or minds to the world of signs and a pro-business sign ordinance. This does not mean I want a particular sign in a particular location or to allow anyone to go without any regulation... we just want it to be complete and fair to all involved. The way ours is written right now opens up some questions in some areas.
I will say one thing about the business community. They ARE INTERESTED in this. There has been a lot of open forum meetings and the business community turned out, came to the meetings, called me, called city hall and asked a lot of questions. This kind of shows me that the business community as a whole knows the value of signage. That makes me feel pretty good.
Anyway, I'll give you the update after tomorrow night's episode. This is so much better than what is on the tube. It's all about tears, pain and redemption, no?
-------------------- Jeff Vrstal Main Street Signs 157 E. Main Street Evansville, WI 53536 1-608-882-0322 Posts: 670 | From: Evansville, Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good luck Jeff ...you know ...I know what you're going thru.
Let us know how your permit approvals go after all has been decided.
Also ,something to watch for...in the first year after the new sign code was implimented, "staff" made a ton of changes without advance notice and without apology for many errors they made making the changes.Makes you wonder when it's all done "what the hell was I thinkin".
Hopefully you'll have better luck.
-------------------- "Werks fer me...it'll werk fer you"
posted
Monte pointed out a huge problem. Unless there is specific language preventing this, codes can be changed (or more likely, "re-interpreted") by the jobholders in P&Z, according to their whims, grudges, personal opinions, whatever. I've seen the P&Z office in my town taking vindicative, retaliatory legal action against certain businesses who have overturned previous rulings in court, on entirely different issues. It's not just sign regs, but the whole culture of zoning as allowing punitive enforcement of regulations, by unelected "staff" members, forcing citizens to spend $$$$ on lawyers in defense.
-------------------- "A wise man concerns himself with the truth, not with what people believe." - Aristotle
Cam Bortz Finest Kind Signs Pondside Iron works 256 S. Broad St. Pawcatuck, Ct. 06379 "Award winning Signs since 1988" Posts: 3051 | From: Pawcatuck,Connecticut USA | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen complications resulting from words like "may" or "shall" and "can." Words that leave interpretational margin for the planner or building official. I like those words, and think that if there is an explanation of the intent of the section then they could apply the intention rather than their preference.
We have this awkward thing about free standing signs needing to go for site and architecture review and to the planning commission meeting. This is a $500 application to get approval to go buy a sign permit. The intention was for large gas station and steel pipe electrical signs, but the current interpretation is applied to a 4x4 redwood post in a garden with an 18x24 on it.
-------------------- The SignShop Mendocino, California
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity. — Charles Mingus Posts: 6811 | From: Mendocino, CA. USA | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, "spelling" it out so that you remove the possibility of future planners mis-interpreting the code can be difficult. If you get TOO specific, you run into the problem of establishing a "content based" code. Tricky stuff.
-------------------- Jeff Vrstal Main Street Signs 157 E. Main Street Evansville, WI 53536 1-608-882-0322 Posts: 670 | From: Evansville, Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here’s the update on the City Council meeting. TABLED.
There was to be NO citizen participation on the motion to pass the ordinance, so in the “Citizen appearances other than agenda items listed” time slot, there was a minor outpouring of concern. Most of this was from either the business community or some of the actual Council members. A couple of those that simply felt that we had worked on it too long voice opinions. One of the Historic Preservation Committee members expressed their generous offer to help with percentile matching funding to help bring Nonconforming signs into conformance. This is an offer to set aside up to $1500.00 per year towards the fund for the next three years. He figured that this more than made up for disallowing commercial backlit signs and allowing non-commercial backlit signs in the HPD.
THE CITY ATTORNEY… even though he mentioned the fact that I had provided MUCH information on the discrepancies in the ordinance and made an effort to point out that MUCH of the information that I had provided was misleading (due to the fact that these cases took place outside of the state of Wisconsin)… agreed with my conclusion that there was a problem that suggested a constitutional violation. I think that he only looked at the ONE problem area and spoke to that point.
This could really get interesting. I enjoyed the statement that the attorney made about an ENTIRE SIGN INDUSTRY with lawyers on retainer were just waiting to pounce on this ordinance issue.
So it goes…
-------------------- Jeff Vrstal Main Street Signs 157 E. Main Street Evansville, WI 53536 1-608-882-0322 Posts: 670 | From: Evansville, Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic