2008-06-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6 Mr. Huja asked if the BAR gets requests from other businesses for a LCD screen will they approve them. Mr. Wolf said that perhaps the guidelines should be revisited. Mr. Huja said he understands the desire to have a sign, and said he does not object to it facing the mall. He said he is concerned about setting a precedent to allow LCD screens which is not allowed by the sign ordinance the way he reads it. He said it is an internally lighted sign. He said he is also concerned about promoting things such as beer on the sign. Mr. Taliaferro said he favored the sign the way it was originally presented, and supports the appeal. Responding to a question from Ms. Edwards, Mr. Hutto said there is no restriction within the lease about putting up temporary signs. He said the video terminal is the industry standard. He said he thinks he could insert a LCD screen legally and take it out when there are no events. He said he thought that the screen could be used to promote other events, but he came back with the compromise of the cover. Dr. Brown said this is a complicated issue. He said he does not think this is something the sign ordinance anticipated in that the Pavilion is not a structure and the LCD screen is new technology. He agreed with Mr. Taliaferro and said there is something to be said for having a visible sign. He said he thinks this is an exception because there is no building or window. He said he is reluctant to overturn the BAR, but supports the appeal. Mr. Norris said he is sympathetic to the Pavilion wanting a sign to face the mall. He noted that it will be blocked by the box office. He said they can legally wheel out screens now for each performance. He said he is troubled by the concern about commercialization of the public space and advertising beer. He said it would be fine with him to advertise upcoming events. He said he is included to support the appeal. Ms. Edwards said she is struggling with this issue. She said this would help the first time visitor to the Pavilion. She said she is concerned about the size of the sign and adhering to the ordinance. Mr. Huja said the lease may be contrary to the sign ordinance. He said advertising beer bothers him. He said he does not object to the sign facing the mall, but he will vote against the appeal. Mr. Norris asked if the images could be restricted to non commercial announcements. Ms. Davies said if there is concern about creating a public forum on public property Council can defer that question. Mr. Norris asked if Mr. Hutto is willing to volunteer to have no commercial images on the screen. Mr. Hutto said he would need advice before answering that question. He noted that advertising upcoming events is commercial. Dr. Brown said he is inclined to approve the appeal, though he said there is value in looking at the lease. He said he would find it difficult to restrict content. He said it would be visible only during Pavilion events to people who have purchased tickets. He said he is prepared to move forward with the vote. Ms. Edwards asked that given the time frame are temporary signs an unreasonable option.