07/22/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- . , Councilman Hershner said he would oppose referral not especially because he thought there had been ample time to comply, but he thought the size issue, for i 'instance, had been before the Commission already and they had rejected any :amendment. Manager said that to be completely fair it should be pointed out . 'that the many times suggested amendments had been before the Planning Commiss~on during the five-year compliance period the Commission judgment was based to some extent on the feeling that nothing should be done to alter the Code during that period. Onff'of the factors in referring to the Commission would be their consideration of whether to open the question of amendment. Councilman Wood, although he agreed with staff's position with regard to limitations of what should be considered by the Commission, was undecided about a general referral of the issue. He thought he could be more sure of his position by the time of consideration at formal Counc,i1 meeting with more I specific information. II ( I Councilwoman Beal asked if her understanding was correct that there had been no :review of the Sign Code since its adoption. Manager replied there had been no :organized total review. However, the Sign Code Board of Appeals had worked 'with it many times when applying specific requests for variances of relief. Mick Nolte, superintendnet of building inspection, said his impression from Board action was that they supported the Code and felt it had no major flaws. :There had been referrals to the Planning Commissi'on relative to minor clarifi- cation but no push for change of overall effect of the Code. e Councilwoman Beal remarked about the length of time spent in developing the Sign Code, the numbers of public hearings, the amount of thought and analysis, and said since it sxmed to be working there would be no justification for opening it unless there was some indication that the entire Code needed review. She felt it would be unfair to amend the Code for a specific industry, tha tit might create hardship for those who did comply. ;Councilwoman Campbell agreed, saying she would oppose the motion to refer. She 'said that al though Mr. Haines had explained the suggested amendments in detail ,to her, she felt he should realize the history of the S~gn Code indicating_it :was the one thing the Council had held firm on. Councilman Keller agreed that'the community was better for having the Code. :However, he felt that just because other businesses complied didn't necessarily indicate the regulations were entirely right. He felt discussion of referral ,to the Board of Appeals was invalid because they were charged with enforcing the Code as written, not in making any changes. And he felt the addition of a " grandfather clause should not be discussed. He didn't see any harm in opening I the matter of billboard size, especially since it was understood that by re- ferring the item to the Commission, the Council was not saying anything was going to be changed. . Councilman Williams stated his intent to abstain from any discussion or votes on the issue. " Councilman Wood thought he would oppose referral, saying he might have a more specific motion to present at the formal Council meeting when the item t-/as considered. He said he would not be opposed to minor adjustments in specific ,areas. He asked for staff comment on its reasons for not opposing a change in !billboard size. Manager replied that it was his understanding there had been i ,a change in the standard billboard size, industry-wide. Panels formerly prepared: t 650-foot limit were changed to 672 feet and would not fit existing bill- ,on a :boards. He felt the difference in size would not make a significant change in appea::a.nce. .. ..,,-,., '-_.'--",-- ........-,. -,--_._--_..-~-- -,-~' --.---..... ."-- The motion was further clarified by Councilman McDonald and Mayor Anderson ~ to refer to the Commission, but that the scope of review and possible re- ~ ,'commendation concern only size of billboards and their conflict with : :identity signs. \ , Comm , I Vote was taken. , Motion defeated, Councilmen McDonald, Keller, and Wood' 7/17/74 Itl voting aye; Councilmen Hershner, Beal, Campbell, and Murray voting no; I Councilman williams abstaining. - ' - See Action . ..-. " Below '>- ':'/0 . 7/22/74 - 15 2..70