Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-020 Findings - Sign CodeBEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON In the matter of the ) Amendment of the Ashland ) Sign Code with Respect to) Non-conforming Signs ) Findings of Fact Hearings were initiated by the Planning Commission by resolution on A Public Hearing was held at the Planning Commission on April 10, 1985. A Public Hearing was held at the Ashland City Council on May 21, 1985. The proposed modifications are a restructuring and clarification of the existing sign code provisions which deal with non-conform- ing signs. The restructuring accomplishes the following: It removes a Section in the Site Review Ordinance (19.72) which deals with non-conforming signs and the requirement that they must come into conformance if an expansion of a use is considered. b. It deletes a provision in the existing sign code regarding non-conforming signs. It creates a new Section 18.96.160 which consolidates all of the sign code provisions on non-conforming signs. The current code has an ambigious clause, Section 18.72.140, which uses the word 'parcel'. This word is not defined in the Ashland Sign Code, and it is not clear whether a business that exists on more than one parcel would require compliance with the Ashland Sign Code. It is the Council's intent that businesses comply with this provision when expansions are made to the busi- ness. The visual impact on the City is the same whether the business complex is operated on more than two parcels. Therefore, sign compliance should be required using the same criteria as for other businesses which are on a single tax lot parcel. 10. It also makes the modification that the only signs~which must be brought into conformance are signs which have been out of com- pliance with some factor of the Ashland Sign Code, as currently written, for more than five years. In other words, only signs which are at least five years old are affected by this ordinance. This is determined to be a reasonable amount of time for signs to be brought into conformance. Also, testimony by the City Plan- ning Director indicated that the large majority of non-conforming signs have been in existence since before the 1967 sign code, and therefore are almost 20 years old. This method is the most acceptable method of bringing signs into conformance. The purpose of this last provision is to allow at least five years for nonconforming signs to exist prior to requiring that they be brought into conformance. Rather than the traditional method of sign conformance which requires all signs to be brought into conformance at an arbitrary date five to seven years after the adoption of the code, the City waits until either the sign copy changes or an expansion of a business occurs. This is a more convenient time for businesses to bring signs into conformance because a business has usually changed hands (requiring a change in copy) or a business is going through an expansion and, there- fore, can finance the relatively minor cost of the sign conform- ance. This provides for a reasonable amount of time for a busi- ness to plan for conformance with the sign code, as has been the experience with the existing code. In all the testimony that was heard, there were no objections from the scores of businesses which have already been required to bring signs into compliance at the time of business expansion or change of copy that this parctice had caused a financial hardship. There was testimony from one party, Cliff Moran, who objected on aesthetic grounds. A further change is the redefinition of a business complex or shopping center to include what is fairly common in Ashland - a business operating as an entity spanning two or more tax lots. The prior code required conformance when a site review expanded a business on a parcel. This changes conformance with the Ashland Comprehensive Plan as it does not change any existing policies or any substantial provisions of the ordinance, only clarifies existing policies and ordinances. It also further implements the specific Policy VII- 2(C), 3 which states, "(Specific Development Guidelines which will insure that developments) contain strong sign regulations which insure that the number, size and placement of signs are the minimum required for recognition by the public of the business at the s~{e." (emphasis added). 11. The paragraph E. provides for relief for any unusuial hardship or extrordinary circumstances when signs are required to be brought into conformance. This will alleviate any unforseen problems which are encountered in imlementation of this ordinance. Approved by City Council this day of ,1985. ATTEST: Nan E. Franklin City Recorder L. Gordon Medaris Mayor