10/27/1980 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1980 company in trying to obtain a bond for the placement of the signs in the city, and he wondered if the city would accept proof of his insurance in lieu of a bond. He stated that the Kitty Kat Lounge had contracted with him for the placement of a sign in the right -of -way in front of the establishment, and he had been ordered by the city to remove the sign. Mr. Hill explained that the city's concern was that the public sidewalks are not to be used for those purposes, and also that the placement of these temporary flashing signs does not provide the type of environment that is positive. He stated that most business establishments provide permanent signage. Mr. Bassett felt the signs were of economic value to the city, and he could not understand why the Board would want to discourage their use. Mr. McMahon stated that, on a temporary basis, the flashing signs are allowed for a 60 -day period. He stated that, in the past, the Board has felt strongly that the temporary signs would be permissible only on that basis and that they will not be allowed in the public right -of -way. Mr. Bassett felt this was not adequately enforced and that there were many other signs in the right -of -way and nothing was being done about them. Mr. McMahon explained that, when a complaint is received by the city regarding the placement of these signs in the right -of -way, an inspection confirms the complaint and the sign is ordered removed. He stated that the city does not have one inspector who just inspects for signs, but does act accordingly when the violations are brought to the city's attention. He assured Mr. Bassett that the Board would not change its stand on the use of temporary signs nor permit the signs to be located in the public right -of -way. Mr. Bassett asked about the requirement that he be bonded, and Mr. Crone stated that he would check the ordinance to determine if proof of liability insurance would be sufficient. Mr. Bassett wondered if there would be an easier way to handle the issuance of permits, perhaps on a yearly basis, rather than individual permits for each sign erected. He again stated that he felt the ordinance was not enforced the same for everyone. Mr. Hill stated that the city would lose all control over the issuance of the permits if they were not issued on an individual basis. He disagreed with Mr. Bassett on his statement that the city was not enforcing the ordinance. He felt that Mr. Bassett's very presence at the meeting was a result of the city's enforcement of the ordinance. He stressed that violations are brought to the Board's attention in the form of complaints received. There being no further business to come before the Board, upon a motion made by Mr. McMahon, seconded by Mr. Hill and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 a.m. P P , '®ra7�70)W'm ichard L. Hil o Jo ph E. Kerna ATTEST: G a__ Barbara J. Byer g, Cler