09/10/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

;,.' B. Request for Sign Code Amendment Review - Council members were previously furnished with staff report and analysis together with City Attorney's comments with regard to proposals for Sign Code amendments presented by Obie Communications Corporation. . Included in Obie's submittal was copy of opinion with regard to legality of the present sign ordinance and a statistical analysis of effect of the ordinance on billboard installations. Another group, chaired by Warren Korstad, requested con- sideration of amendments to the Code because of concern for identification and other signs exclusive of billboards. However, their concerns have not been re- ceived in written form so have not been reviewed nor commented upon by staff. The staff report was read and Manager noted the section-by-section analysis sub- mitted by Obie of how the proposed amendments would affect the Code. He said that the Planning staff indicated there was very little in the analysis which had not been presented at the time the Code was adopted. He noted the extensive hear- .ings conducted at the time it was adopted. Councilman McDonald asked whether the "determination" with regard to enforcement of the regulations was made by officials of the Building Department themselves or in accordance with terms of the ordinance. Manager explained that the Building Department is charged with enforcement of the ordinance and has indicated to Obie that some of their billboards are not in conformance. An appeal to that determina- tion is in effect a request for a variance. The Sign Code Board of Appeals has the J authority to decide whether the Building officials have erred, or under certain conditions may grant a variance if it is justified and not contrary to the intent of the ordinance. - Councilman Williams asked if adoption of staff's alternative recommendation to allow the Sign Code to continue in its present form would indicate tha,t neither staff nor the Board of Appeals has any suggested amendments or changes. Manager said he could not answer for the Board, but staff would suggest that over a period of time there may be clarifications ,needed to make the ordinance more understandable for both the staff and the industry. However, review is not felt necessary at this) time as a reason for postponing the amortization period. Staff considers the ordinance workable in its present form. Answering Councilman Keller, Manager said the Obie proposals have not been before the Sign Code Board of Appeals. There is provision in the ordinanc:e for appei!l from a decision of the Board to the Council if specific decisions on non-conforming ~ uses do not sa tisfy the applicant. Mayor Anderson's thought was that a variance would not be a factor in consideration of any amendments to the Code. The Board has authority to grant a variance. The question at issue, he said, is whether to consider amendm~nts to the Sign Code. Councilman Wood asked if there were time limits involved in variances. City Attorney answered that each grant for extension is limited to six months with a . total of three variances for anyone sign or location. Councilman McDonald wondered whether there was any penalty if a non-conforming sign were not removed and how costly it would be for the City were Obie Communica- tions to start litigation if their non-conforming billboards were not permitted I to remain. Mayor Anderson brought the discussion back to whether amendments would be considered. Councilman Hershner asked about the status of non-conforming signs during the period of public hearings should it be decided to consider amendments. Manager said, and City Attorney confirmed, that until the Council amends the ordinance or extends the amortization period, non-conforming signs will be SUbject to enforcement un- less application is made to the Board of Appeals for variance. Eric Larsen, attorney representing Obie Communications, expressed his client's opinion that a variance was not the solution to the problem of elimination of non-conforming signs. He said if signs do not conform at the September 10 dead- \ line, then they would already be illegal and consideration of any amendments would be made more difficult. He claimed the question was one of regulation vs prOhibition, saying the Code is prohibitory when applied to billboards. He cited statistics with regard to limitations imposed by the ordinance and maintained - that they ,in effect eliminated billboard business in Eugene. Mr. Larsen disagreed with the City Attorney's opinion with regard to compensation for those signs which would have to be removed. He maintained there was no evidence of danger to pUblic safety, health, and morals which would justify the Code. He defined the taking of private property, and said there should be compensation since enforcement of the Code would have a drastic effect upon the ability of Obie to do business. He said it was stretching the use of police power in protecting the pUblic for aesthetic reasons and cited Federal and other state legal opinions.in this regard. He maintained enforcement of the Code would ignore investment, market value, extt;lnt ofur€}!capturing inve~trne~~,_l~rl.g~hn of~ unexpired leases. ~ --~~._.~ 2&1 9/10/73 - 5