The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2357 Nonconforming Signs ORDINANCE NO 2357 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE WITH RESPECT TO NONCONFORMING SIGNS" THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 010 Section 18072,,140 is hereby deleted from the Ashland Municipal Codeo SECTION 2. Section l8,,96,,050(c) is hereby deleted from the Ashland Municipal Gode. SECTION 30 Section 18.96.150 shall be renumbered as Section 18.96.160, and a new Section 18096.150 is hereby added to the Ashland Municipal Code and shall read as follows: "18.96.1S0, Nonconforming signs. Ao Any sign which does not conform with a prov~s~on of the Ashland Sign Code, and has been in existence for more than 5 years is subject to this Sectiono B. Change of copy or otherwise altering any existing non- confo~ning sign" It is unlawful to change the copy on or otherwise alter any existing nonconforming signo The sign must be brought into conformance with this Title upon change of copy or alteration, or copy change. Acts of God or vandalism which damage these nonconforming signs shall be exempt from this Section, if the cost of the repair is less than 50% of the cost of replacing the sign with a conforming sign. However, the signs must be restored to their original copy and a permit with a $10.00 fee will be required prior to the repair work. Co Any nonconforming sign used by a business, shopping center, or business complex must be brought into conformance prior to any expansion or change in use which requires a Site/Review or Conditional Use Permit" All nonconforming signs mus~ be brought into conformance with the same provisions as are required for new signso No Building Permits for new construction may be issued until this provision is complied with" Do Variances can be granted using the variance procedure of this Title to alleviate unusual hardships or extraordinary cir- cumstan~es which exist in bring nonconforming signs into conformity. The var~ance granted shall be the minimum required to alleviate the hardship or extraordinary circumstance. SECTION 4." Section l8,,960020(CC) of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "CCo Shopping center or business complex - any busi~ess or ~roup of businesses which are in a building or group of build- ~ngs, on one or more lots which are contiguous or which are se1?arated by a public right-of-way or a privately owned flag dr~ve used for access and not greater than 35' in width, which are constructed and/or managed as a single entity and share ownership and/or functiono" , -1- The foregoing ordinance was first read on the' . I'~ day o~j ~J-'-" -" , 1985, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED thi"s /jZA day of c::.k~ , 19850 --; 9~ L ~~ an Eo Frank ~n City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this,gO ~day of- ~ ' 1985. .~~~~ . Gor on e aris l1ayor AJ// d~~' ;<~S? ~ . p-d -€"I ~.' /L~ /t/- 5'3 J' .~ BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON In the matter of the Amendment of the Ashland Findings of Fact Sign Code with Respect to) Non-conforming Signs ) 1. Hearings were initiated by the Planning Commission by resolution on 2. A Public Hearing was held at the Planning Commission on April 10, 1985. 3. A Public Hearing was held at the Ashland City Council on May 21, 1985. 4. 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: a. 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 regarding non-conforming signs. existing sign code c. It: creates a new Section 18.96.160 which consolidates all of the sign code provisions on non-conforming signs. 5. 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 exist:s on more than one parcel would require compliance with the Ashland Sign Code. It is the Council's intent that businesses compl:i wi th this provision when expansions are made to the busi- ness. 6. The ~i1isual impact on the City is the same whether the business compl.~x 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. ~.-.._--~----.._--._~---- .- -, " 7. It also makes the modification that the only signs' which must be brought into conformance are signs which have been out of com- p1ian.ce 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, an~ therefore are almost 20 years old. This method is, the most acceptable method of bringing signs into conformance. 8. 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 th1e time of business expansion or change of copy that this parctice had caused a financial hardship. There was testimony from c::>ne party, Cliff Moran, who objected on aesthetic grounds. 9. 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 p]~ ior code required conformance when a si te review expanded a business on a parcel. lO. 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 site." (emphasis added). -- .......~-"- .... ;1, 11. The paragraph E. provides for relief for any unusuial hardship or extrclrdinary circumstances when signs are required to be brought into conformance. This will alleviate any unforseen problems which are encountered in imlementation of this ordinance. /o-q. (7.._ /,r day of ~,1985. Approved by City Council this AITEST: ~.~ ~d~"J Nan E. Franklin - Ci ty Recorder /d~-<-~~ L. Gordon Medaris ' Mayor