04/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved sec'ondby Mr. Keller that 'the bill be approved and given _ final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, ..., except Councilman Williams abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17288. B. Staff 'appeal from Sign Code Board of Appeals approval of variance for continuance (0150) of billboard south of I~105east of Coburg Road Rescheduled from Council meeting of March 10, 1975. Staffinotes and minutes of Sign Code Board of Appeals meeting of February 17, 1975 were previously distributed to Council members and were made a part of this record by reference thereto. No ex parte contacts or other reasons for abstaining from voting were declared by Council members other than Councilman Williams, abstaining from actions involving sign issues, and Councilman Haws, abstaining because of having been a member of the Sign Code Board of Appeals at the time this issue was initially brought before the Board. Mick Nolte, superintendent of building inspection, explained that the billboard was nonconforming because of its location within the setback area of I-lOs without technical highway/street frontage. He read the staff appeal and noted applicable sections of the code. Also, attention was called to the record wherein precedence was set in denial of a sign for the Holiday Inn across I-lOs from the subject bill- board. Assistant Manager noted that the Sign Code Board of Appeals was withhold- ing decision on a number of other billboards awaiting the Council's interpretation of the code as it affects this particular sign. Public hearing was opened. . Ray Wqlfe, 1926 Potter Street, supported the staff's appeal. He said that the original draft of the sign ordinance did not permit placement of billboards in the city at all, basically because it was felt they served the public interest very little and frequently advertised on a national level and were of little use to the local community. Also, billboards were considered distractions, creating a traffic hazard, particularly adjacent to high-speed roads. And they frequently carried outdated advertising. He thought it important to recognize that pressures for variances would result in a weakened code, eroding it little by little. He said that Obie had not accepted the code in good grace, that there were still many billboard skeletons standing in, violation. Also, that Obie now has a number of re- quests for variances before the Board which would be influenced by the Council's decision on this appeal. Because of these pressures on the Board and the number of appeals, Mr. Wolfe felt there might be a tendency on the part of the Board to grant variances or waivers to avoid spending the time and effort in'holding to the code. He cited the danger of precedence if this waiver was granted - the code calling for fair and equal treatment - and said the interpretation of what con- stituted "frontage" should not divert from the primary purpose of the code, to protect health, safety, and welfare of the public. Eric Larsen, attorney for Obie, noted that staff notes, appeal, and minutes had been made a part of this record, and that Mr. Torrey of Obie would be presenting a sign district map also to be made a part of the record along with written remarks summarizing it. Mr. Larsen said the billboard in question was constructed prior to adoption of the sign code and that the original notice of nonconformity dealt .~ only with setback. The sign, he said, was actually more than 40 feet from the edge of the paved surface of the highway, and 30 feet from the gravel area. He pointed out that the staff originally took a neutral position and suggested that the Board 4/14/75 - 2 lS~