I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
Ever read this section (17.64.040 Nonconforming signs) and try to figure out if it allows grandfathered signs to be altered the same as a nonconforming sign? Why yes, I have. I don’t believe it does.
The city staff says that no alterations are allowed to grandfathered signs but the code does allow non structural alterations for non conforming signs. City staff maintains that a grandfathered sign is different than a non-conforming sign. I don’t read it that way. I do. It has its own section. A. (3) says “any sign user may file for an exemption as set forth in subsection B and the provisions of that subsection shall govern.”
It seems to me that a grandfathered sign is a subset of non-conforming signs and has additional rights not different rights. Nope, all by itself. A grandfathered sign has the rights set in subsection B. and no others.
Admittedly the non-conforming sign section is a little murky when read literally but a little common sense would go a long way. Hahahahaaa etc. This came up with Dave Pierce who was given the choice of leaving an existing sign face alone to maintain his grandfather exemption or he could give up the grandfathering and could make the changes he wanted before 2012 but the sign would have to be torn down in 2015. He opted to keep his grandfather exemption. Funny thing though, his sign was not too tall or big as is required to get an exemption. It was grandfathered because he had too many signs and they were too close. And when his car lot got annexed into the city, apparently some one wiped their ass with the sign code. Oops, did I say that? Do over. Apparently, they invoked part D. “Administrative Authority. The director of Community Development is granted authority to perform an administrative review and make appropriate decisions to allow some flexibility in individual nonconforming situations where the strict interpretation and application of the code will be unworkable for the property owner.”
There is no mention of this in the grandfather sections so his sign should not have been granted an exemption in the first place. Probably true. Another point that should have been made is, each sign is grandfathered as a seperate sign. So what needs to be determined is what makes this sign non-conforming in the first place. Is it over height? Over size? I am inclined to believe it is not. I am pretty confident also, that this sign could be permitted under the new code, and should not be placed in the non conforming or grandfathered catagories in the first place. Except for the number of signs on this lot. They had to do something, and number of signs per premise is part of the code, and probably the only reason any of the Pierce signs are non conforming.
Now, Mr. Pierce should have no trouble determining if this sign is in fact grandfathered, because he would have had to apply for this exemption, and submit photo’s and pay his $50.00 or whatever. If it is grandfathered, he shouldn’t have tried to get an appeal, (if he did) because you cannot change a grandfathered sign.
If it is just non conforming, it gets a bit murky. You see, I can find nowhere in the code that it states “when one non conforming sign on a premis is changed and must comply, all the other signs on the premise must comply also.” It states “ANY sign which is altered shall immediately comply…” So why can he not change just this one sign? If he does try to change it, the City will most likely claim he will have to tear it down in 2015. But this sign, if it can be brought into compliance, should not be considered nonconforming. It’s all those others….
However, I may well interpret the “comprehensive and cohesive code that is readily understood and consistently applied” differently than the City does. Imagine that.
8 Responses to “I may be wrong, but I doubt it.”
1 GeeGuy 18 July 2007 @ 8:35 am
Yes, imagine that. Does anyone understand this stuff?
2 firefly 18 July 2007 @ 11:41 am
The way it is written? Yes.
The way it is interpreted? Uhhh,,…
3 Wolfpack 18 July 2007 @ 12:54 pm
I still don’t think the grandfather sections intent is completely clear. I see the simplified facts as such:
1) All signs built legally but not meeting the new code are non-conforming signs.
2) All non-conforming signs can be changed until 2012.
3) All non-conforming signs must conform by 2015 or come down.
4) Grandfathered signs are a subset of non-conforming signs.
5) Grandfathered signs can stay perpetually.
6) Grandfathered signs can not be changed. (yes, I agree it plainly says this)
Because Section B, para 1 doesn’t specifically say the 2012 deadline for non conforming sign changes doesn’t apply and section A includes grandfathered signs as non-conforming signs, it is ambiguous as to the legislative intent. Why are grandfathered signs in the same section as non-conforming signs to begin with if the are not at all the same until a grandfather exemption applies? Doesn’t the use of the term grandfather within the non-conforming section this way beg for confusion?
Geeguy- Can you provide some black letter or real law analysis?
4 firefly 18 July 2007 @ 6:30 pm
1) Yes
2) All non conforming signs may have copy changes, not strucural changes, until ‘12
3) yes
4) Grandfathered signs are non conforming signs that have been given certain exemptions, but also have certain restrictions on them. Those restrictions state that they shall govern. A grandfathered, non conforming sign is ruled by subsection B. This was originally called a historic exemption, and was to have been to protect, well, historical signs, and would be granted by brace yourself, the Historical Preservation Society. It would have allowed standard maintenance and nothing more, for the life of the sign. It obviously made too much sense.
5 Wolfpack 18 July 2007 @ 8:55 pm
2) The limitation of no structural alterations is almost meaningless. By definition it only prevents a sign from getting bigger (that is already grandfathered for being too big) or creating a flood hazard.
4) That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to say with out knowing the history. The final version is the mutant offspring of two different ideas. What exactly did they mean to do? They went halfway. We have grandfathered signs that are also non-conforming signs for which none of the non-conforming rules apply except for the rule where the director of community development can change the rules when he deems necessary. Clearly if the end result desired was a historical exemption they would have left it as such but they didn’t. They created a grandfathered exemption which usually means you get additional rights not fewer, they also mangled the final wording so that the changes implemented to create something other than a historical exemption resulted in a historical exemption called a non-conforming grandfather exemption, with no historical society required. For give me if this quits making sense but I just don’t get what, why or how they did it.
6 firefly 19 July 2007 @ 7:24 am
2) I don’t understand that interpretation. A face change on a sign triggers compliance.
Another thing I would like to point out-I hear about non conforming signs “that have to be torn down in 2015″ Why? If you have two pole signs on a premise, that is over code. You have to take one down, yes. but if a business had two signs, you could put some money into one, and tear the other down in ‘15, as long as the remaining sign could be brought into compliance, which usually just means some electric work and maybe a little landscaping. (And removal of your private property, in the form of the other sign of course)
My point is, Pierces signs are nonconforming, due to number of signs per premise. They must conform by 2015. (I do not see how they could all be grandfathered.) So, he does the face change, and installs his message board (which does count for total face size, by the way) and this sign is legalally permitted and installed, he should not have to tear this sign down in ‘15. As all the other signs must conform at the same time, he has to remove them, but the City cannot make him take that sign down, if it is the one he choses to keep as his pole sign.
If however, somehow the City did grandfather his signs, and they all get to stay in perpetuity, every other business owner on 10th ave should be raising holy hell.
7 Wolfpack 19 July 2007 @ 11:44 am
2) You are right I didn’t mean grandfathered, I meant allowed. Until 2012 for any non-conforming sign:
“ The copy face of a sign may be changed or altered in any manner which does not require structural alteration.”
“Structural alteration” means any change or addition to a structure that increases its external dimensions and/or increases its potential flood hazard. This is what I meant by meaningless
Pierce’s need for additional signs I believe is driven by the car mfg’s franchising requirements that a sign representing their line be present. No VW sign no VW cars. Yes, I believe he grandfathered all his signs. The trouble comes from some city staff who were telling business that copy changes were allowed until 2012 for their grandfathered signs. They then find out different when they apply for a permit. Also, Pierce’s message center was included in the size calculations. Many signs are grandfathered because of height and size. This is not an easy or desirable thing to correct if you are fighting with traffic lights, street lights and/or 6 lanes of traffic for visibility. This leads back to my original thought that the intent of the non-conforming code is unclear enough that city staff and the public are having a tough time conforming to it. I think the general thought in the business community was that a grandfathered sign was just that, not the historical exemption city staff has turned it into. Do you really think the commission was trying to trick anyone when the came up with the grandfather exemption? Or, was the code language from city staff just sloppy?
8 GeeGuy 19 July 2007 @ 2:37 pm
Or is this just another example of no-nothing busybodies poking their no-nothing noses into stuff that is none of their business and basically making it harder to do business in our “business friendly” community?
Leave a Reply