Laserfiche WebLink
<br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 02-24-97 <br />ITEM NO.: <br />Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section: <br />Re orts <br />Appeal of City's interpretation of section 14.040 of the City's <br />zoning code relating to the prohibition of flashing signs and the <br />City's enforcement actions relating thereto. <br /> <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />. In August of 1996 Image Now applied for a sign permit to allow the renovation of <br />the pylon sign located at the Rosedale Square shopping center at 1165 County <br />Road C. A part of that renovation included the addition of an electronic message <br />board on the top of the sign in question. The permit was issued. <br /> <br />. The City sign code in Section 1009.03A2 indicates that flashing signs are <br />prohibited. It further states that "where the message or graphic content of a <br />sign can be changed by electronic or electronic means, such message may <br />not change more than once every 24 hours except messages displaying <br />time and temperature." <br /> <br />. A notation was made on the permit application indicating one message per 24 <br />hour period. The applicant received a copy of the permit application with the <br />notation on it. <br /> <br />. After construction of the sign, the City staff noted that the electronic message <br />board was not being operated in accordance with the ordinance in that there was <br />not a constant message on the sign which did not change more than once every <br />24 hours. Staff contacted the owners and informed them of the non-compliance <br />of the sign. <br /> <br />. The owners and the sign company have appealed staff's interpretation and <br />enforcement actions in this matter. The basis of the appeal is the following: <br /> <br />1) The message does not change more than once every 24 hours. <br />However, because of the limited number of characters that can be on <br />the screen at anyone time, the message has to roll or scroll to get the <br />whole message on. <br /> <br />2) The owners and sign company were not properly informed of the <br />ordinance provision. <br /> <br />1 <br />