HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Letter dated May 19, 1994 from Hunziker & Furmann • I
FIL D
MAY 2 01994
COY TOf CLE
RK
REALMOS® AM low
H & F BUILDERS 435 S. DUFF AVENUE,AMES, IOWA 50010 (515) 233-4450 FAX (515) 233-5132
May 19, 1994
The Honorable Larry Curtis and Ames City Council Members
City Hall
515 Clark Avenue
Ames, IA 50010
Dear Mayor Curtis and Council Members:
The following are my observations concerning the Sign
Ordinance for Residential Subdivision Entrance signs in the
City of Ames. The Public Art Purpose, Policy and Procedure
Plan states:
Public Art program page 17, paragraph 15, "Business
Participation" states the business and development community
should be encouraged to contribute and take an active role in
the Public Art Program by making a commitment to include the
work of artists in new developments, using the Public Art
Commission to select a local artist. Our inclusion of a local
artist to design, build and install a public subdivision
identity was responded to by your new ordinance no. 3255.
I would point out this ordinance takes away any incentive for
the private sector to expend funds for residential
subdivision entrance signs by the following regulations:
1. Subsection 5.220 (11) , (b) : "It shall be unlawful to
erect a subdivision entrance sign on public property, and the
Council shall grant no encroachment permits for such signs."
When a develo_oer donates additional land to >ubd;vi�inn i !?
enhance the safety and esthetic appeal by dividing the
streets with a landscaped median, the ordinance will not
allow a sign to be placed there (ie: The new Northridge
entrance would not now be allowed) . If in fact this is viewed
as public art, why shouldn't it be allowed to be placed on
public property?
2. Subsection 5.220 (11) , (h) : ". . .No signs are permitted
if a property owner's association does not exist for the
subdivision."
Many subdivisions do not have a property owner association.
To create one for the sole purpose of sign maintenance
borders on the ridiculous. A home owners association requires
the expense to set it up, perpetuate it by having someone
serve on its Board, collect dues (maybe a $1. 00 per year per
home) , and place a possible title objection on the future
sales of 177 homes, in the case of Hillside, for example.
Under tb i s scenari n why sho l!: th` I
developer t the extr-a
go
expense?
The following are possible solutions to the problems noted
above:
In response to #1: Allow signs on public property if
they meet your ordinance and do not create an unsafe
situation.
In response to #2 : Allow developers to give money to
the City for the maintenance of a sign. The Hillside sign is
of steel and plexiglass construction and should last 25 to 50
years without maintenance. I ' ll give you a check for $500. 00
to maintain this sign. I doubt that any of us will be alive
to see it spent!
I submit the above for your consideration. I believe amending
the policy would enhance the community and benefit all
residents.
Thank you for your consideration.
C i ncerel y,
Dean E. Hunziker
Broker/Owner