Sunglasses definition argued at length

City officials who listened to about an hour of debate at the Aug. 5 meeting on the definition of sunglasses upheld the Planning Commission’s version.

The City Council voted 3-0 in favor of the commission’s definition that sunglasses are lenses with a tinting or darkening of the lens, which Emporio Optic, 263 Forest Ave., had appealed.

Emporio owner Richard Wilhelm had sought to exempt some tinted eyewear from a city restriction on the amount of “sunglasses” his shop can display.

“Most people believe that darkness of lenses determines a sunglass,” Wilhelm said. “That’s not true. It depends on UV [ultra violet] protection.

“This is serious business, protecting people’s eyes.”

The store wanted a different definition of sunglasses as an amendment to its conditional use permit, with opponents evenly divided among the 12 speakers who testified in the lengthy hearing.

Emporio was cited for violating the code requiring a maximum of 20% sunglasses displayed in the shop, according to a city staff report.

“The application was a reaction to a code enforcement action,” Community Development Director John Montgomery said. “They wanted to redefine sunglasses, which has been debated at numerous council and Planning Commission meetings.

“My feeling is the [Emporio] proposal will continue to confuse the issue.”

The appellant’s proposal to the commission defined sunglasses as eyewear with a lens or lenses that are a solid dark color designed to protect eyes from the glare of the sun, limited to 20% of all displayed eyewear in the store.

The proposal also limited the window display to 20% sunglasses, as defined by the store owner.

”We are here tonight because a competitor made a complaint and the code enforcement officer cited us,” Emporio Optic spokesman Greg Nelson said.

The complaint was that the store displayed more than the permitted 20% of sunglasses, but Nelson said that not all tinted lenses are sunglasses and the code enforcement officer had no way of knowing without testing.

“These are clearly not designed to be sunglasses, but they would be designated as sunglasses,” Nelson said, displaying a pair of glasses with pink tinted lenses.

According to the staff summary, the amendment proposed by the applicant would turn the store topsy-turvey, making it into a sunglass shop selling ancillary optical lenses, the reverse of its approved permit.

The original application submitted in 1998 was for a conditional use permit to operate a retail store selling designer frames, prescription lenses and sunglasses and included a lens manufacturing service, with sunglasses to be an ancillary component.

The application was denied by the Planning Commission, but approved by the City Council on appeal.

“Council approved the application because [owner] Larry Sand said, ‘I am not a sunglass store, and I am an optics store,’ ”said Sunglass Gallery representative Scott Sounders. “The reason they want to change the definition is because they are always selling sunglasses. They are a high-end sunglass store.”

The 3-0 decision to uphold the commission definition had to be unanimous because only three council members were eligible to vote.

Mayor Pro Tem Cheryl Kinsman and Councilman Kelly Boyd reused themselves because they own property within the state-banned boundaries for official participation.

“I was on the commission that turned this down, because we felt it was another sunglass store,” Councilwoman Elizabeth Pearson said. “I think the commission was pretty darn close, but I would like to add for clarity that we do not want this to be a sunglass store.”