08/31/1970 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"... I ~3 e 8/31/70 r " , I he was sure Mr. Obie would have been heard from sooner. I Mr. Mohr was concerned with the question of regulation, and that perhaps this was going beyond regulation and taking Mr. Obie's property. Was the impact on these signs discussed at previous hearings? I City Attorney said he recalled the remark made previously by Mr. Hoffman very clearly and that the Planning Commission 'did reach a compromise between an objective of abolition of outdoor advertising signs in the city and the present provisions contained in the sign ordinance. What the Council is really consider- I ing is what its policy is in regard to the sign ordinance. The City A~torney's- r office has interpreted the ordinance to say there will be no billboards within the 15' setback, and the Council decision is whether they want to change this I, intent. The City is not actually taking anything from Mr. Obie at this time, II but would be preventing him from installing something because of provisions in I the sign ordinance. As far as consideration given at time of adoption of the ordinance, the Council received a great many statistics as to implications of e the ordinance on the outdoor advertising industry. II Mrs. Niven pointed out that others besides those in outdoor advertising were affected by the setback provisions of the ordinance. Those installing signs since adoption of the ordinance have accepted these provisions with the idea II they would be uniform and would be required of everyone within five years. An 11 amortization period was set up to mitigate some loss business people would I be faced with. A great deal of thought and consideration were given before II the ordinance was adopted. I, I" Mr. Hoffman felt the overall effect on the outdoor industry was considered, II but that there apparently was a misunderstanding as to setback on which the figures were based. Mr. Pearson said there were volumes of statistics given I about billboards, and they were generally spoken of in terms of area, and I this was the conception under which the Planning Commission included them. The ".... -.~6~fu"n:L:l,i>#on,:_considered',the fact that leases for billboards rarely went beyond I fi ve years --time, and 10% of the billboards came down every year. He did not believe that at any time the Planning Commission considered that this 15' I setback would not apply to billboards. I Brian Obie said hjs company had believed this issue was resolved. He read I minutes of April, 1968, which he felt demonstrated this point, and said that rather than 1/3 of their billboards, which they originally thought they would ! lose, under this ruling they would lose 2/3. , ,I I Councilwoman fuyward said she believed the abie Sign Company was a good citizen 1 I and would certainly move signs they felt were blanketing others, but that the i city could not write an ordinance around a particular business. Certainly, II insurance is needed that identity signs will not be blanketed. - - II Councilwoman Beal questioned if what the Council was considering was an amendment I as, to policy, and hardship could be considered at another time. I Mrs'. Niven suggested that some arrangement could be made for the advertising I company to obtain releases from adjoining property owners that they had no objection to location of the billboards. This could cause difficulty when the I property changed hands, and also could pose problems with other types of signs~ It could also create a situation where the identity sign meant nothing. It I would be difficult to draw the line and be consistent in treatment of people using. that space. - I -.;::, City Manager suggested that the abie Company might be concerned only with the I 62 signs now affected. He asked Mr. abie if they could live with the 15' setback with regard to future signs. il II Mr. abie said his immediate concern was with the signs they now have. From II a compromise standpoint they could continue to operate if they could save the I signs they now have, and set the new ones back 15'. He pointed out that they I generally lease property not being used for another business, and there would I be no need for an identity sign. He suggested that any variances be on the II basis of complaint, and possibly referral to the sign board of appeals. Ii II Mrs. Beal asked if the real purpose of the ordinance was not beautification II of the community and avoidance of proliferation. Mrs. Niven ~eplied that this was a natural outcome, but the main purpose of the ordinance was to make it \' I I' .1 seen. The major problem was one of identity. II 1\ Manager suggested that a decision should be made concerning the desirability I of the 15 I setback. Then perhaps the question of the 62 billboards could be i considered. I I --'-~ " _.,~._.-.._- I Planning Director cautioned that there would be many problems when theaJn0rtii~ti0i1' '. I' \1 period expired, and that this should be kept in mind wnen any decist"orIs ~were -~. -. '<,. i\ made concerning billboards now locatedwithin the city. e 'I !i " i/ ! 8/31/70 - 9 ~