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