07/22/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In-resPonse to repeated questioning by Mayor Anderson, ,Mr. Haines saidtheie would be 97 signs left if the amendments were accepted; that Obie under company policy had removed none of the nonconforming signs since adoption of the Sign i ,Code. Instead they had brought a formal proposal for am~ndment to be heard , , ,by the Council. Councilman Wood said he would nOt favor any action which would circumvent ! e intent of the Code or extend the compliance deadline. He wondered whether i i ,referral to the planning commlss~on for consideration of any type of change would jeopardize legality of the sign ordinance. Manager answered that referral, 'for a reasonable length of time for Commi-ssion consideration limi ted to specificr portions would 1cDld cff compliance since it would seem unfai! to remove signs during the process of cons iiierj, ng--compa tibili ty wi th the ordinance. Whet:her legal problems would'farise because of that referral _would seem no more probable .~ha~_at the present time, but he said it could be checked. - Councilman McDonald expressed surprise that Obie had taken down none of the nonconforming signs. Manager said th~ t_ Mr. Haines' statement was that none ,were removed as the result of ~o~pany polipy.~_He explained that the sign ordinance_created-some nonconforming signs where there was,conflict between : existing billboards and identity signs for businesses on newly developed I property. That was the major reason for removal of Obie signs since adoption ; :of the 'Sign Code. Councilman McDonald commented that referral to the --j 'Planning Commission might open the entire billboard section to lengthy 'debate and he didn't care to go through th<!t c:ga~_,But on the other hand, he wasn't in favor of regulations that would force a business out of the city. Be fel t if the referral was limi ted to specific portions of/the Code it i - :probably should go back to the Commission. :Councilman Keller saw no harm in referring it to the Comm~ssion. , He thought :perhaps it should be looked at as an updating program. ! Councilman Hershner wondered whether in limiting consideration to certain items it was suggested that the amendments be considered item by item. Manager: said he assumed there would be opportunity on each item for Mr. Haines to :present information. Staff would not find any fault with requesting consider- ation of a change in billboard size from 650 square feet to 672 square feet, al though this was discussed previously and rejected. There was staff concern 'about request for variations from that for cutouts. Neither did staff have any quarrel with possible improvement of the ordinance in the area of allowing identity signs and billboards on the same property-whergl1ew development ~_. -_.- -~. --- "" "--- :was ocCZ!:!-rrin[, recogni~zi!lg~pa6ing requirements might be restdcted, and havipg no' information with regard to potential of new locations which might be created. Staff ~~uld strongly resist writing into the ordinance a grandfather clause (permitting present nonconforming signs constructed prior to adoption ,of the Code so long as they were not altered, relocated or replaced) because it would be unfair to the many owners of signs who had complied with the Code. ,TO make an exception for billboards, he said, would be very inappropriate. e ,The question of cutouts, Manager continued, would be one the Council could ;decide whether to refer. Staff would prefer to refer those issues which : would be covere(J"by-the grandfather clause to, the Sign Code Board of Appeals 'for consideration of each individualsitlIation. Staff saw no problem with - ,relaxation of the Code for insignificant variations so long as the~ structures were maintained in good condition. Mayor Anderson was opposed to Planning Commission referral. He felt it would be unfair to those businesses which had complied with the Code, many with some 'hardship'. Also, t!1atthe billboard industry had the opportunity to comply during tha~-same-time, yet nothing had been done. These amendments, he said, :could have been considered during that time. Besides, the city was threatened ,with court action. He thought a good code haQJbeen developed, one of benefit i to the community, and the industry should live by it. ! Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr..Keller to refer the suggested am,endments, limited. to those specific items re- ferred to by Manager/ to the Planning Commission for : recommendation. Councilman Keller asked' for clarification - whether the motion would re'fer the '. matter to staff or to the commission. Mayor Anderson said he thought it would be referred to the Commission with limitations on the scope of review to those . items mentioned by Manager - size, conflict between identity signs and bill- ,boards, and cutouts. Manager explained, that staff felt the amendment with regard to cutouts was not acceptable so it seemed useless to refer that item since it had been discussed at length without agreement. , 7/22/74 - 14 Lb~