Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 11/17/1964 - SpecialPRESENT: Mayor James L. Barnard Mayor Pro Tem Jim Young Commissioners: Jack R. Blackmon J. R. de Leon M. P. Maldonado W. J. Roberts W. H. Wallace, Jr. CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, 'TEXAS SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING November 17, 1964 7:30 p.m. City Manager Herbert Wo Whitney Asst City Att'y Wayland Pilcher City Secretary T. Flay Kring • Mayor James L. Barnard called the meeting to order at 7030 porno, in the South Concourse of the Memorial Coliseum. Commissioner J. R. de Leon gave the Invocation, City Secretary T. Ray Kring called the roll of those in attendance. Tom Marshall, Chairman of the Zoning & Planning Commission, reported the presence of a quorum of the Commission, and Mayor Barnard announced the meeting was competent to proceed. Mayor Barnard announced the purpose of the special meeting for the pur- pose of holding a Joint public hearing of the City Council and. the Zoning & Plan- ning Commission on consideration of a proposed amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Corpus Christi. (Copy of proposed amendment is attached to these minutes for reference.) Mayor Barnard explained the procedure to be followed. City Manager Whitney explained that at the request of the Council, he had instructed Mr. Bill Anderson, Director of Planning, to prepare and submit for the Council's consideration, proposed changes to the City's Zoning Ordinance primarily concerned with signs, particularly on the bayaront area; that copies of the proposed changes have been made available to all interstsd parties; and that Mr. Anderson would explain the effect of the proposed changes. Mr. Bill Anderson, Director of Planning, orally and by means of charts, explained each of the proposed regulations relative to the size and location of signs in the Bayfront Business District; and the change of jurisdiction in the matter of variances of size and location of signs or other advertising structure from the Board of Adjustment to the City Countil, and a Bayfront Commission creat- ed by this proposed amendment shall act in an advisory capacity in this regard. Howard T. Ayers, immediate past chairman of the Zoning & Planning Com- mission, felt it was imperative for most of the businesses along the bayfront to City Of Corpus Christi, Texas Special Council Meeting November 17, 1964 Page 2 in some manner advertise the business they are conducting,. particularly with re- spect to the motels; disagreed with the contention that most travellers have made advance reservations and need only an identification sisn; disagreed with the con- tention that existing signs detract from the beauty of the bayfront view; felt that the proposed provisions regarding the 20° setback ad the removal of any structures within the 20° setback would be penalizing the existing businesses by one-fifth or 20 percent of the land value of the property and would be denying future businesses the use of this much of property for which a substantial price was paid. With respect to the creation of a Bayfront Commission, he felt that the failure of one board would not necessarily be remedied. by the creation of another board; questioned the matter of duties of the new board wth relation to the ex- isting Bayfront Advisory Board; and cidestionedthe wording of the provision which might allow the welfare of a property owner to be decided by the Bayfront Commis- sion failing to take any action on an application for a sign variance. Mayor Barnard explained that the intention of the Connell was for the Bayfront Commission to make recommendation to the Council regarding requests for free-standing or roof signs, with the Council having the final decision, and to have other duties regarding beautification of areas along the Bayfront; and that the existing Bayfront Advisory Board is mainly concerned with things on the water. Joe Barshop, owner of Ramada Inn, spoke in defense of his sign on the basis that it is needed as an emblem of his operation, a trade -mark, known all over the country for which he pays a monthly charge for the privilege of using, and which brings in over 40 percent of his business; stated that if his sign is illegal, so are other sign variances on the bayfront; that he does not object to uniform signs all up and down the bayfront, but feels he, is being persecuted by OPUS since he has spent a million dollars to turn a former weedy corner lot into a showplace, while there are used car lots, and outmoded and rundown tourist courts on the bayfront that are nct being sued in Court. John Waller, attorney, representing Famada Inc. stated that the size of the Ramada Inn sign is permitted under the present ordinance, and that the Board Of Adjustment had permitted the variation as to location only; objected to the definition of "non -conforming" as being an "illegal" sign; objected to the amor- • City of Corpus Christi, Texas Special Council Meeting November 17, 1964 Page 3 tization period as being 5 years on the basis that: the life of these signs and the maintenance contracts run for from 15 to 25 years; urged that the Board of Adjust- ment be left with its present duties and authority; and that there be a provision validating the existing investments on Shoreline, James R. Wells, speaking for himself, questioned the need for the pro- posed ordinance on the basis that there might be further revision by a future Council; stated that large signs are a hazard in tropical storms and to navigation as ship masters are baffled in finding navigation signs due to the prominence of neon signs on the bayfront; that people cannot see the natural beauty of the land- scape driving down Shoreline and that they pay a premium for a room overlooking the Bay and can't see it because of obstructing signs and are kept awake at night by the signs flickering in their room; and pointed out that throughout the world the better places that attract the better class of people are not lit up with large garish signs, but are identified, with dignified type signs, Paul A. Vogler, representing himself, stated he was amazed at the beauty of the signs on the bayfront, that they would attract people like the lighted signs on the Strip in Las Vegas; that the power of the Board of Adjustment should be strengthened; that a new board could not be just civic=minded citizens, but would have to be qualified engineers, architects and landscape artists due to the prob- lems of roof and building structure in view of hurricane damage; and that other development as well as beauty should be considered for the bayfront. Rev. A. F. Swearingen, pastor of the Parkway Presbyterian Church, re- ferred to the petition signed by approximately 135 members of his church last March relative to the bayfrcnt;mentioned the enormous cost of undoing the ugly in other cities, and urged that the City not confuse progress with what might prove to be community suicide by destroying the charm and loveliness that makes our community unique. J. L. Gaertner did not think 20° was too much of a setback, but that it was not fair to deny variances for legitimate reasons just to hold down the number granted, H. B. McCord, representing the American Institute of Architects, stated the architects of the community had studied the proposed ordinance as a group, and • • City of Corpus Christi, Texas Special Council Meeting November 17, 1964 Page 4 had also considered the existing zoning ordinances, trying to apply the proposed recommendations and compromises suggested, and that they advocate not adopting the proposed ordinance; that the Council is the only body that can preserve the beauty of the bayfront; that we have a beautiful bayfront under the existing ordinances and they seriously question if it can be maintained under compromise, Harold A. Carr stated he has served on the Planning Commission, on the Board of Adjustment, and as attorney for the Zoning & Planning Commission; felt much more time for study and consideration of an ordinance of this magnitude was needed; pointed out that the 20' setback has always been in the ordinance, but that there has been some laxity in the enforcement of this provision; that when the 20' provision was put in the ordinance, the land was not as valuable as it is today; that space and beauty has a great influence upon the land value of real estate; that the Committee that made the recommendations for the proposed ordinance had never settled the question of whether or not a new commission was needed, since there would be conflicts between the new commission, the existing Bayfront Advisory Commission, and the Board of Adjustment; that an Architectural Control Committee had been suggested such as the one in Santa Barbara; that in setting up the new commission in the proposed ordinance the duties, policies and powers are not de- fined; that to provide the existing structures remain for 5 years or possibly longer, is legalizing every error that has been committed by the Board of Adjust- ment in spite of the fact that the Board may have no no authority to grant cer- tain variances, and he contends are outright violations and therefore void; and that to legalize them in this manner is preventing the Court from ruling on the question of their validity; that it has never been the policy to make illegal uses non -conforming. Mr. Carr urged that the Courts be allowed to decide if the vari ations are legal, otherwise we will never know what the powers of the Board are, never know if the Legal Department advised correctly, what constitutes legal hard- ship, or if a Board can make its own decision when it 52. -agrees with the written rules adopted by the City Council. He felt that the Council's sympathy should not be for the Board of Adjustment that it appointed, or for the motel operators who wanted something not allowed under our ordinances, but for the citizens of Corpus Christi, Nueces County and six surrounding counties, who spent millions to City of Corpus Christi, Texas Special Council Meeting November 17, 1964 Page 5 • create a beautiful bayfront, and who planned properly to ',ring about the greatest and best use of our economic asset. Mr. tar.r urged that the proposed amendment be given many hours of study and deliberation and. that the variances not be legalized, Gus Heinemann, Chairman of the Park & Recreation Board, observed that if the trend in the Downtown Area and the Bayfront keeps up, Corpus Christi will soon have little to offer not duplicated in other area,, much less to encourage visitors to come here; stated that the proposed ordinance has much merit in its intent to restore the bayfront to the citizens of Corpus Christi and their enjoyment of its features; that the 5 -year limitation will only result in additional 5 -year periods with the objective not being accomplished; and stated that the Park & Recreation Board, in regular meeting on October 10, 1964, recommended that the present Bay- front Zoning Ordinance be retained, and in order to accomplesh the parklike quality, that the 20' setback be adhered to, and provision be made to reclaim the areas presently in violation, and eventually to achieve restoration of our bayfront according to its original intent and purpose. Peter Flournoy, representing the Ca C. Hotel & Motel Association, read a letter to the City Council, to the effect that the Association at its meeting on Monday, November 16, 1964, voted unanimously its objection to the .`fact that the hotel industry was not represented. by the committee submitting the new proposal regulating bayfront signs, and requesting that further study be given this question and that the hotel industry be represented in this planning. As an example, he said that the records of any hotel or motel in Corpus Christi would show the small percentage of guests who arrive with reservations, that we are living in a shop- per's world where visitors walk in and question the rates and facilities; and in objection to the provision that signs be limited to the use conducted on the premises, he pointed out that a hotel is no longer just a hotel but includes a club, restuarant, gift shop, liquor store, automatic laundry, hair dryers, free telephone, direct dial telephone, 'recti t card affil.iatie:c.e, and reader boards welcoming organizations or people to the City, Mrs, Virginia Ridgway, representing the Downtowner Motel, spoke in de- fence of the Downtowner Motel swimming pool as being in keeping with the parklike character since there have been two bond elections to build swimming pools in the • City of Corpus Christi, Texas Special Council Meeting November 17, 1964 Page 6 parks; pointed out that the Dob;ter.er egn is 200 square feet as allowed under the ordinance but under the proposed ordinance: it would become a nonconforming use; she felt that the designers of signs and the businessmen who spend from $12,000 to $25,000 to attract tourists should be consulted as to what will attract tourists; and with respect to the proposed new commission to decide what is taste- ful, architecturally attractive, and in the beat interest of the City, she asked what kind of a commission would be Qualified to judge whether a competive sign is in the best interest of the City based on its art work, when what may be pleasing to one person may not be to another and yet both may be in good artistic taste. She urged that the Council adopt an ordinance that will help develop the tourist trade, help Corpus grow, encourage c«.ncpet:iti.on and permit adequate signs to be able to compete with each other, and stay in business. Ellsworth W, Handy, repre5enting the Sign Industry, pointed out that except for one real estate firm, every development made on Shoreline has consid- ered it necessary to get a Board of Adjustment variation for its identification sign; that it is almost impossible to design a goodlooking sign on the absolute maximum of 40 square feet allowed for signs in all shopping centers even if there is no lettering on it; that often part of the sign that makes it compatible with the building structure is what makes it necessary to get a variation; and urged that the Board of Adjustment be retained with power to grant variations as they are needed, and that drastic changes in the size of signs allowed are what is needed to have attractive signs, since no businessman in the City can afford money for a sign that is not going to improve his business- Mrs. usiness Mrs. A. S. Meers, as a charter member of the Civic Beautification Asso- ciation, pointed out that the Board, of Adjustment is set up by State Law, as 5 to 7 members appointed by City Council, and the only way they can be removed or dis- missed is for cause, written chargee, and public hearing, andthat suit must be filed within 10 days to countera:t any of their ac 'ons, otherwise they are final. She also pointed out that a sign not attached to a building must have separate insurance or there is no coverage for it; and that since the motel rates go down automatically 20% after Labor Lay, we are definitely a resort town; and that when motel owners come into our City they should study our City ordinances and not vio- late them, and help preserve the beauty we have worked so hard for, • city of Corpus Christi, Texas Special Council Meeting November 17, 196+ Page 7 Mrs. (W. E.) Marjorie Owen, speaking in behalf of OPUS, pointed out that the tourist is important to the hotels, motels and restaurants,, but the money made off of them isn't necessarily spread around in the very charitable and unselfish way they would have us believe; that if the existing ordinance was not observed, we cannot trust that a new one will be; that her hometown of Cape Cod is a famous tourist and resort place, but commercial structures cannot be built along the water- front; that million -dollar hotels and motels were built on the Florida bayfront until you can't see the waterfront, and they are empty; that we must look beyond the greed of a few to see what kind of heritage we are going to leave behind us. She felt that signs and commercialism are not needed on the bayfront, since we do not want another Atlantic City or a Lae Vegas, and that what is going to draw the people to Corpus Christi is the charm, the naturaln.ese, and the scenic beauty. She stated that OPUS le not out to get the owner of Ramada Inn or anybody, but out to see that a City Ordinance is upheld, and that vastly more than signs is involved, as it is a matter of obeying our laws or changing them at will, and that it is a matter of keeping our bayfront from going downgrade, and that much more study of the proposed ordinance is needed. Charles R. Cunningham, speaking for himself alttouT.. he has represented OPUS in Court, expressed his concern and love for this City; pointed out that be- cause of the way in which the bayfront was built, it is every citizen's direct con- cern; that it is not like a corner lot, and that the beauty of the bayfront is magnificent, and the hard work and foresight of the City Council that created it must not be destroyed. He strongly urged that the issue at Court not be clouded by the passage of this ordinance; and that after the Court has made its decision, if the ordinance needs changing, then a great deal more than the 3 or 4 days of discussion that was given the proposed ordinance is vital to the whole City. DeLores Boswell, speaking for herself, related her experience of driving across the bridge on her arrival in this sparkling city by the sea, where driving down Shoreline looking for a motel, the lighted city made her feel she was getting the red carpet treatment, and she liked it. WS. T. F. Weber, speaking for herself, felt that we all know we have to have business or something on the bayfront other than just trees, and that if more time and study is given to the matter, it can be resolved reasonably. • City of Corpus Christi, Texas Special Council Meeting November 17, 1964 page 8 Virginia Hartsell, speaking for herself, said that when they bought their property they were aware of the yard restrictions and the building restrictions, and wondered if the owners of the bayfront lots were not also aware of their re- strictions when they bought them, and asked why there was such a rush to get a brand new ordinance passed when it took so many millions of dollars and so many months to build, and so many months of hard work by the City Fathers to preserve and protect the bayfront. Mrs. Reva Gregg, speaking for OPUS and herself, pointed out that the reason given for not allowing signs on top of buildings a few years ago when the present ordinance was passed vas because of the safety factor in case of fire, and that if it was a safety factor then it would be one now, and therefore should not be allowed. Mayor Barnard commented that apparently there is a need for change in the ordinance since everyone requests a variance from the present ordinance; that the Councilwas attempting to make it unnecessary for an owner to have to appeal to the Board of Adjustment for a variation every time a new building was construct- ed; that there had to be a starting point and that was the purpose of the proposed ordinance and this public hearing; but from the notes he has taken at this hearing, it looked like both sides are against the proposed ordinance; and thanked everyone for coming and giving the Council the benefit of their ideas. Everyone who wished to speak having been given an opportunity to do so, Mayor Barnard, with the consent of the Council and the Zoning & Planning Commission, declared the joint public hearing closed, and the special meeting adjourned. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS: • SECTION 1. THAT SUBSECTION 16 or SECTIoN•14-2 OF THE CORPUS CHRISTI ZONING ORDINANCE BE AMENDED BY STRIKING ALL or SUBSECTION 16 AND IN LIEU THEREOF, PLACING THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: 416) SIGNS PERTAINING ONLY TO USE CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 14-5 SET FORTH BELOW." SECTION 2. THAT SECTION 14-5 OF THE'CORPUS CHRISTI ZONING OR01- NANCE BE AMENDED BY ADDING THERETO ADDITIONAL SUBSECTIONS• AS SET FORTH BELOW: "SECTION 1I1-5.1 NO BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES DR SIGNS SHALL BE PER.. MITTED IN THE FRONT YARD AREA AS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 24 OF THE CORPUS CHRISTI ZONING ORDINANCE. "SECTION 14-5.2 THE OWNER OR LESSEE, OR ANY AGENT OF THE OWNER OR LESSEE, OF ANY BUILDING IN THE B-2 BAYFRONT BUSINESS DISTRICT WHICH IS ONE OR TWO STORIES 1N HEIGHT (OR 26 FEET, WHICHEVER IS LESS) SHALL HAVE ONE OF THF FOLLOW- ING OPTIONS: (11 (2) A SIGN OR SIGNS WHICH SHALL BE ATTACHED FLAT AGAINST THE FACE OF THE BUILOING, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS -THE "BASIC SIGN"; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THE TOTAL SIGN AREA PERMITTED SHALL BE ONE SQUARE FOOT OF SIGN AREA FOR EACH LINEAR FOOT OF SAID BUILDING WHICH FACES SHORELINE BOULEVARD OR OCEAN DRIVE; PROVIDED FURTHER THAT IN NO CASE SHALL SAID BASIC SIGN BE MORE THAN 200 SQUARE FEET WHEN ATTACHED TO THE FACE or SAID BUILDING. UP TO ONE-HALF OF THE BASIC SIGN MAY BE ATTACHED TO ONE OR MORE WALLS OF A BUILDING& IF SAID WALL OR WALLS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY PERPENDICULAR 'f0 SHORELINE BOULEVARD OR OCEAN DRIVE, THE SIGNS ATTACHED TO 50110 WALL OR WALLS MAY BE INCREASED IN AREA BY FIFTY PER CENT 4590. (3) A SINGLE FREE-STANDING OR ROOF SIGN MAY BE PER- MITTED FOR THE PRINCIPAL MAIN USE BUILDING ON A LOT IF (A) SAID LOT FACES OCEAN DRIVE OR SHORELINE BOULEVARD FOR AT LEAST 150 FEET. (8) SAID FREE- STANDING OR ROOF SIGN DOES NOT EXCEED 200 SQUARE FEET, (c) A SPECIAL COUNCIL PERMIT IS OR..taED UNDER THE PROVISIONS SET OUT IN SECTION 14-5.41 BELOW. "SECTION 14-5.$ THE OWNER OR LESSEE, OR ANY AGENT Of AN OWNER OR LESSEE, OF ANY BUILDING IN THE 8-2 BAYFRONT BUSINESS DISTRICT WHICH IS THREE STORIES OR MORE AND MORE THAN 26 FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS: (2) (3) A SIGN OR SIGNS' WHICH SHALL BE ATTACHED FLAT AGAINST THE FACE OF THE BUILDING, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'BASIC S1GN' PROVIDED; HOWEVER, THE TOTAL SIGN AREA PERMITTED SHALL BE ONE SQUARE. FOOT OF SIGN AREA FOR EACH LINEAR FOOT OF SAID BUILDING WHICH FACES SHORELINE BOULEVARD QR OCEAN DRIVE; PROVIDED FURTHER THAT IN NO CASE SHALL SAID BASIC SIGN BE MORE THAN 200 SQUARE FEET WHEN ATTACHED TO THE FACE OF SAID BUILDING. IN ADDITION TO THE BASIC SIGN THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL SIGNS, THE AREA OF WHICH ARE NO MORE THAN FIVE PER CENT OF THAT PGRTION'OF THE FACE OF THE PRINCIPAL MAIN USE BUILDING WHICH IS .MORE THAN 26 FEET IN HEIGHT; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE SIGN SET FORTH IN THIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE ATTACHED FLAT AGAINST THE BUILDING AND NO PORTION OF THIS SIGN SHALL BE CLOSER THAN TEN FEET TO ANY PART OF THE BASIC SIGN AS MEASURED ALONG THE EXTERIOR WALLS OF SAID BUILDINO. UP TO ONE-HALF OF THE BASIC SIGN AREA ANO UP TO ONE- HALF OF THE SIGN AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 14-5.3,.SUB- SECTION 2, MAY BE ATTACHED TO A WALL OF A BUILDING WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY PERPENDICULAR TO SHORELINE BOULEVARD OR OCEAN DRIVE; THE SIGNS ATTACHED TO SAID WALL OR WALLS MAY BE INCREASED IN AREA BY FIFTY PER CENT. (4) A SINGLE FREE-STANDING OR ROOF SIGN MAY BE PERMITTED FOR THE PRINCIPAL MAIN USE BUILDING ON A LOT IF (A) SAID LOT FACES OCEAN DRIVE OR SHORELINE BOULEVARD FOR AT LEAST 150 FEET, (B) SAID FREE-STANDING OR ROOF SIGN DOES NOT EXCEED_200 SQUARE FEET, `C) A SPECIAL COUNCIL PERMIT IS OBTAINED UNDER THE PRO- VISIONS SET OUT IN SECTION 14-5.4 BELOW. "SECTION 14-5.4 THERE IS. HEREBY CREATED A BAYFRONT COMMISSION, CONSISTING OF NINE PERSONS WHO SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR. AN'APPLICATION FOR A FREE-STANDING OR ROOF SIGN IN THE BAYFRONT BUSINESS DISTRICT SHALL BE MADE TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI. SAID APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SAID PRO- POSED FREE-STANDING OR ROOF SIGN AND A PLOT SKETCH DRAWN TO SCALE SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED FREE- STANDING 0R ROOF SIGN° -2- • SAID APPLICA..TION, PLANS AND SKETCH SHALL BE FORWARDED TO THE BAYFRONT COMMISSION FOR ITS CONSIDERATION. SAID COMMISSION SHALL APPROVE, DISAPPROVE, OR APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS SAID APPLICATION WITHIN 45 DAYS AFTER THE FORWARDING OF SAID APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION. IF THE BAYFRONT COMMISSION DOES NOT ACT ON ANY SIGN REQUEST REFERRED TO IT WITHIN THE SAID 45 DAYS, SAID APPLICATION SHALL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED DISAPPROVED BY THE COMMISSION. • -BEFORE APPROVING, WITH OR WITHOUT CONDITIONS, THE COM- MISSION SHALL DETERMINE THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SAID FREE. STANDING OR ROOF SIGN WOULD BE TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI AND THAT SAID SIGN IS IN KEEPING WITH THE ARCHITECTURE or THE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE SAME -LOT AS SAID SIGN. AFTER THE BAYFRONT COMMISSION HAS STUDIED AN APPLICATION FOR A FREE-STANDING OR ROOF,SIGN IT SHALL FORWARD SAID APPLICATION, WITH THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON SAID APPLICATION AFTER GIVING NOTICE THEREOF TO THE PUBLIC AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 30-4 OF THE CORPUS CHRISTI ZONING ORDINANCE. AFTER SAID PUBLIC HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL APPROVE, DENY, OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVE SAID APPLICATION FOR A FREE STANDING OR ROOF • SIGN; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL NEVER APPROVE A FREE-STANDING OR ROOF SIGN LARGER THAN 200 SQUARE FEET. IN ADDITION TO CONSIDERING APPLICATIONS FOR FREE-STANG- ING OR ROOF SIGNS, THE COMMISSION SHALL RECOMMEND METHODS OF ELIMINATING OR IMPROVING UNSIGHTLY AREAS ALONG THE BAY FRONT AND ENCOURAGE TASTEFUL ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS FOR BUILDINGS, SIGNS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE BAY FRONT. „SECTION 14-5.5 EVERY SIGN OR STRUCTURE EXISTING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE PRO- VISIONS HEREOF SHALL BE REMOVED, ALTERED, OR REPLACED AFTER SAID SIGN OR OTHER STRUCTURE HAS EXISTED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME LONG ENOUGH FOR THE OWNER, IN THE USUAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, TO AMORTIZE HIS INVESTMENT IN SAID SIGN OR STRUCTURE. IT IS HEREBY OETERMINED THAT ANY SIGN OR STRUCTURE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE HAS AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE AND ALL SUCH NONCONFORMING SIGNS OR STRUCTURES SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN THAT TIME; PROVIDED HOWEVER, THAT THE OWNER OF ANY NONCONFORMING SIGN OR STRUCTURE WHICH I5 REQUIRED TO BE REMOVED, ALTERED OR REPLACED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE MAY MAKE AN APPLICATION IN WRITING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE AFOREMENTIONED AMORTIZATION PERIOD, SAID WRITTEN APPLICATION SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CITY SECRETARY MORE THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS BEFORE THE DATE SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION FOR THE ALTERA- TION, REMOVAL, OR REPLACEMENT OF SAID SIGN OR STRUCTURE, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON SAID APPLICATION AFTER GIVING NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 30-4 OF THE CORPUS CHRISTI ZONING OROINANCE. THE ONLY QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED AT SAID PUBLIC HEAR- ING IS THE QUESTION OF A REASONABLE AMORTIZATION PERIOD. AFTER HEARING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL DETERMINE A REASONABLE AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR SAID NONCONFORMING SIGN OR STRUCTURE AND *MALL SET THE DATE •ON WHICH SAID NONCONFORMING SIGN OR STRUCTURE SHALL BE REMOVED) ALTERED OR REPLACED TO CONFORM TO TME PRO- VISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE. M$ECTION 14-5.6 ANY APPLICATION OF ANY NATURE WHICH IS FILED SUANT 70 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14-5 SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY 425.00 TO PARTIALLY DEFRAY EXPENSES RELATIVE TO SAID APPLICATION/R• • '. 4' • SECTION 3. THAT ARTICLE 29 OF THE CORPUS CHRISTI ZONING ORDINANCE BE AMENDED BY ADDING A HEW SECTION TO SAID ARTICLE NUMBERED SECTION 29-8 TO READ AS FOLLOWS: "SECTION 29-8 NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISIONS or THE CORPUS CHRISTI ZONING ORDINANCE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SHALL HAVE NO AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION TO VARY OR CHANGE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CORPUS CHRISTI ZONING ORDINANCE RELY ING TO THE LOCATION OR SIZE or ANY SIGN OR OTHER ADVER- TISIN0 STRUCTURE. SECTION 4. IF ANY SECTION, PARAGRAPH, SUBDIVISION, CLAUSE, PHRASE OR PROVISION OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL SE ADJUDGED INVALID OR HELD UNCONSTI. TUTIONAL, THE SAME SHALL NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THIS ORDINANCE AS A WHOLE OR ANY PART OR PROVISION TNEREOF,OTHER THAN THE PART BO DECIDED TO SE INVALID OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SECTION 5• ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS or ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT ('HEREWITH ARE HEREBY REPEALED* SECTION 6. PUBLICATION SHALL BE MADE IN THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION 4 1 OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, ONE TIME, WHICH PUBLICATION SHALL CONTAIN THE CAPTION STATING IN SUBSTANCE THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE AND RECITING THAT THE PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE) AS AMENDED) SHALL At A FIN('0F-NOT EXCEEDING ONE HUNDRED (4100.00) DOLLARS.`