Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/12/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 25, 2012 I Volume 6 1 No. 10 Validity of oning egulations ity Informs usiness caner He is Violating ign Restrictions Business owner challenges sign restrictions as being unconstitutional in violation of his free speech rights Citation: Catsiff v. McCarty, 2012 WL 1232106 (Wash. Ct. App. Div. 3 2012) WASHINGTON (04/12/12)—This case addressed the issue of whether city ordinances restricting the size and height allowed on wall signs violated a store owner's free speech rights under the state and federal constitutions. The Background/Facts: In 1991, the city of Walla Walla, Washington (the "City"), enacted a sign ordinance (the "Sign Code"). The Sign Code's stated purpose was to improve the City's visual quality by accommodating and promoting sign placement "consistent with the character and intent of the zoning district; proper sign maintenance; elimination of visual clutter; and creative and innovative sign design." The Sign Code detailed wall sign size and height requirements for the City's central business district (the "CBD"): Wall signs were limited to 25% of a wall area; no combination of sign areas could exceed 150 square feet per frontage; and signs could not extend higher than 30 feet above grade. In 2002, the City designated a "downtown area" as a subset of its CBD. Then, in 2003, it adopted design standards for the downtown area that contained signage requirements. Those signage requirements mirrored the Sign Code's requirements. Beginning in March 2004, Robert Catsiff ("Catsifl") leased a building in the downtown area of the CBD in which he operated the "Inland Octopus" toy store. In April 2010, Catsiff painted a wall sign depicting an octopus hiding behind a rainbow over the rear entrance of the store. In September 2010, Catsiff painted on the store front an octopus hiding behind several buildings with a rainbow above the buildings. Catsiff did not obtain a sign permit for ei- ther sign. The City eventually issued a notice of civil violation to Catsiff and his landlord regarding both signs. The notice advised them that Catsiff's signs violated the Sign Code permitting requirements, and the sign size and height requirements, as well as the downtown design standards. Catsiff conceded that his signs violated these requirements and standards. However, he asserted that the Sign Code and downtown design standards were unconstitutional in violation of Catsiff's free speech rights under the state and federal constitution. After a hearing examiner ruled that Catsiff had violated the Sign Code and design standards, Catsiff appealed to the superior court. The court rejected Catsiff's constitutional claims and affirmed the hearing examiner's decisions. ©2012 Thomson Reuters 5