04/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e might grant temporary relief until development of the surrounding area. He also noted that the property owner had indicated the present use was about all t~at could be made of that property. Mr. Larsen called ilttention to the distinction in the Board minutes between on-premise signs and billboards as that distinction referred to access. The Board's interpretation was consistent with previous staff positions in issuing permits as late as 1970 for new signs in this type area - controlled access highway. He said the denial of the sign for the Holiday Inn had not dealt with a billboard, rather it was a matter of the number of on-premise signs and not inconsistent with code interpretation with regard to access. e Mr. Larsen reviewed some background of the sign code and its separate sections, calling attention to specific divisions regarding on-premise signs and billboards and noting that "access" was not defined in the code, although "street" was. He said that access was not considered applicable to billboard in the drafting of the ordinance because as indicated by the Board "no one wants to drive to the structure." Mr. Larsen thought it important to note that the billboard was located properly in a "highway oriented district," that it was a question of whether a complicated analysis of "street" relating to "access" should override the definition of "highway oriented district." He noted that there were very limited areas within which billboards were allowed, most of them adjacent to controlled access highways. He didn't think the code should define where billboards could be located, and then because of lack of access, prevent that location. At least, the definition of "highway oriented district" should have as much standing as definition of "street." He said the Sign Board saw no major problems in its interpretation of "access." The Board thought access was not important to location of billboards as compared to on-premise signs which are designed to lead the public to the premises. With regard to setback of the billboard in question, ~1r. Larsen noted that if it was moved back the 14 feet to meet setback requirements, it would still be within the highway oriented district, there would be no intcrfcrence with any identity signs because there were no buildings on the property, and there would be no improvement of safety for either vehicles or pedestrians. He called attention to alternatives presented to the Sign Board and said there were four or five possible actions that could be taken. James Torrey, representing Obie communications, said the question was simply one of whether it was the intent of the sign code to allow outdoor advertising in highway oriented areas. He said that nowhere in the records of meetings at which the sign code was drafted and adopted was there mention of the issue of access concerning outdoor advertising signs. He noted that since adoption of the sign ordinance Obie had been given permits for five signs that did not have access. He pointed out on a map highway oriented areas in the city differentiating between those to which there was no access and those which did have access, including specific areas without access where they were allowed to place billboards. He said there was no reason for access because there was no reason for anyone to get to the signs, and added that the intent of the Council in adopting the sign code in 1968 was to allow outdoor advertising in all highway oriented areas subject to setback and size restrictions. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. e Mr. Nolte summarized the staff position that billboards according to code were allowed only within highway oriented areas and some streets (which he named). The location of this particular billboard, south of 1-105 east of Coburg Road, had not access to 1-105 and was on property designated as outlying commercial sign district fronting on and having access from Centennial Loop. Even if the property was designated as highway-oriented sign district, he said, the sign would still be prohibited because of code restrictions on sign area per square foot in ratio to lineal feet of street frontage. He said the term "frontage" was not defined in the code, but that "street" was, and he read that definition (a main thoroughfare having access to property). Therefore, 1-105 was not considered a street in this 4/14/75 - 3 1~5. (0527)