Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Phelps finds some success with sign exemptions
By Mark Wheeler / Hi-Desert Star
YUCCA VALLEY — Claiming his signs generate important sales taxes for the Town, Neil Phelps addressed Yucca Valley’s planning commission Tuesday in support of his Phelps Chevrolet Nissan application for variances on sign installation at his new auto dealership in the town’s east end on Twentynine Palms Highway.
Claiming his franchise contracts include some dimensional requirements for signs, he appealed to the commission to work with him toward a solution which would satisfy Town regulations and not compromise his franchise agreements.
He furthermore accused the Town’s sign ordinance of being, in so many words, arbitrary and awkward and asked for reasonable consideration from the planning panel.
In a statement to the commission during discussion, Deputy Town Manager Shane Stueckle showed at least indirect sympathy for the applicant’s alleged difficulty when he told everyone present that “sign ordinances are an art, not a science.”
He certified that the process for granting a variance is a legal method for exercising judgment in the implementation of ordinances.
Stueckle emphasized that granting a variance does not constitute a violation of any sort.
Observing that the Town’s ordinance may not cover all circumstances, he concluded with the rhetorical question, “Is the code adequate?”
Of Phelps’ original seven requests for variances, two were canceled before the meeting with an offer from the applicant to construct the signs in compliance with the ordinance.
Two other variance items were canceled by the commission when members declared the signs involved are exempt from the ordinance’s authority and intent. These signs were two directional signs identifying service and repair locations on site, and commissioners agreed they were important customer-service aids.
With the exemption of the two directional signs, the need for another variance was canceled since it pertained to a total square footage violation which was reduced with the exemptions.
Only two variance requests remained and one was granted because the sign in question would only be one foot out of compliance.
Commission members did deny one variance request. The applicant asked to install a 75-square-foot freestanding sign where the ordinance limits such signs to 60 square feet. Not finding sufficient cause to allow the larger installation, commissioners told Phelps to comply with the code in this case.
Noting this particular sign might be one of those Phelps had earlier claimed to be specified in a franchise agreement, commissioner David Cooper stated his confidence, as he voted against the variance, that worldly companies like Chevrolet and Nissan would be prepared with a variety of sign options to comply with a variety of municipal requirements.
Claiming his franchise contracts include some dimensional requirements for signs, he appealed to the commission to work with him toward a solution which would satisfy Town regulations and not compromise his franchise agreements.
He furthermore accused the Town’s sign ordinance of being, in so many words, arbitrary and awkward and asked for reasonable consideration from the planning panel.
In a statement to the commission during discussion, Deputy Town Manager Shane Stueckle showed at least indirect sympathy for the applicant’s alleged difficulty when he told everyone present that “sign ordinances are an art, not a science.”
He certified that the process for granting a variance is a legal method for exercising judgment in the implementation of ordinances.
Stueckle emphasized that granting a variance does not constitute a violation of any sort.
Observing that the Town’s ordinance may not cover all circumstances, he concluded with the rhetorical question, “Is the code adequate?”
Of Phelps’ original seven requests for variances, two were canceled before the meeting with an offer from the applicant to construct the signs in compliance with the ordinance.
Two other variance items were canceled by the commission when members declared the signs involved are exempt from the ordinance’s authority and intent. These signs were two directional signs identifying service and repair locations on site, and commissioners agreed they were important customer-service aids.
With the exemption of the two directional signs, the need for another variance was canceled since it pertained to a total square footage violation which was reduced with the exemptions.
Only two variance requests remained and one was granted because the sign in question would only be one foot out of compliance.
Commission members did deny one variance request. The applicant asked to install a 75-square-foot freestanding sign where the ordinance limits such signs to 60 square feet. Not finding sufficient cause to allow the larger installation, commissioners told Phelps to comply with the code in this case.
Noting this particular sign might be one of those Phelps had earlier claimed to be specified in a franchise agreement, commissioner David Cooper stated his confidence, as he voted against the variance, that worldly companies like Chevrolet and Nissan would be prepared with a variety of sign options to comply with a variety of municipal requirements.
 |
||
| CHP hopes to give teens Smart Start |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of hidesertstar.com.
You must register with a valid email to gain access to this site feature.
Already a Member?Login Here:
|
Become a Registered MemberFill out the form below.
|
RSS
GGWebGrrl wrote on Jan 17, 2009 1:59 PM: