Struggling to determine how to fairly regulate business signage in Sweet Home, the Planning Commission handed the issue off to the City Council Monday night.
Commissioners spent a good part of their meeting grappling with issues such as how large signs should be, whether they should institute a sunset clause on signs that don’t conform to the ordinance’s requirements, how to regulate temporary signs and the issue of multiple signs advertising tobacco and alcohol in the windows of local markets.
Planning Director Carol Lewis told the commission that the proposed ordinance, which updates the current code approved in December of 2003, basically rearranges many of the sections of the current ordinance.
She said the objectives the commissioners were seeking to meet in the proposal they are sending to the council include ensuring safety, enhancing the city’s appearance and reflecting the “desired character” of the city, providing adequate signage without “dominating the visual landscape” and maintaining clear views of traffic signs and devices and other business signs.
The proposed ordinance also includes some proposed changes that proved to be sticking points Monday night.
One was the square footage of allowed signage for a business, reduced from 50 to 32 square feet for properties with less than 32 feet of frontage.
But, the document also states, businesses less than 100 feet from a public right-of-way have a proposed size standard of 200 square feet of total sign area and commissioners noted that that presents a bit of a conflict.
Problem was, after long discussion ranging over many issues, they couldn’t come up with a solution to the problem so they instructed Lewis to craft one, including changes in sizing limitations, before the City Council is scheduled to consider the ordinance on Sept. 28.
“Send it to the council,” Chairman Dick Meyers said as he gaveled the meeting to a close after more than four hours.
Commissioners heard testimony from several members of the public during the proceedings, some in favor of tightening restrictions on signs they consider to be visual clutter in town, and others questioning why any change was necessary.
Tom Hammond and Ken England both told commissioners that any changes without enforcement would be pointless.
“If you’re not going to enforce it, why pass it?” England said. “I know Carol’s (Planning) Department is strapped for funding,
just like every other government agency. It just seems to me that code enforcement in Sweet Home is severely underfunded.
“Citywide, it’s a huge issue. I think that’s one of the reasons why our community is described as shoddy and run-down.”
Hammond told commissioners they should put a sunset clause requiring merchants to get rid of beverage and cigarette signs that, he said, clutter the windows in local markets.
“They need a reasonable time that those have to come down,” he said, noting that one local market has had the same cigarette sign up for “three years.”
Commissioners asked what kind of sunset clause would be reasonable to require business owners to conform to any changes in the sign ordinance. England suggested three to five years “would be plenty of time for businesses to adjust.”
Meyers suggested that a deadline for conformity could be amortized, based on how much it cost a business owner to comply.
Chad McDonald, one of the operators of Thriftway market, questioned the commission’s intent in changing the ordinance.
“Are we keeping people safe or enhancing beauty?” he asked after England was finished.
McDonald said he drove through town and noticed that some of the worst signs on Main Street were traffic signs, which Lewis said were the responsibility of Oregon Department of Transportation, but, he added,
“Is it that big of an issue?” McDonald asked, referring to complaints about the visual clutter that others said was caused by excessive and poorly maintained signage.
Meyers said testimony to the commission has indicated it is.
“The majority of the people we’ve talked to, it’s a problem,” he said.
Thriftway Manager Mark McDonald said that enforcing a sunset clause on businesses whose signs wouldn’t conform to the final ordinance would represent a significant cost to some operators.
“I’m concerned about economic hardship on businesses,” he said. “I don’t know if it will cost us business. Those are unknowns. We’re all afraid of unknowns. I hate to be forced to downsize signs to meet city standards. This has the potential to do this. I don’t say it will, but in our business signage is everything.”
Following the public hearing, commissioners struggled to deal with issue of abandoned signs, the sunset clause and the need to inventory existing signs, which has never been done.
“I don’t think we can address every potential problem,” Commissioner Henry Wolthuis said.
Meyers said that Corvallis requires signs to be permitted and noted that such a policy would effectively cause owners to help inventory the signs in the city.
Lewis said that in recent years all new signs have required building permits, which means the city has records of their size.
She suggested that local residents would have a “hissy fit” if they had to register their signs, as Myers suggested.
“I’m just asking questions,” Meyers said.
“I’m just seeing a nightmare,” Lewis replied.
She also reminded commissioners that a major problem in sign enforcement is a 2006 Oregon Supreme Court decision that bans restrictions on signs that is based on their contents.
Lewis said that decision makes it difficult to regulate abandoned signs, directional signs, group signs advertising more than one business, household signs and temporary signs, because all of them require reading a sign’s contents to determine whether it fits into one of those categories or not.
“There are potential legal issues here,” she said.
Also on Monday, the commission unanimously approved a request by Jim Fry to re-approve the Lake Pointe Estates subdivision south of Riggs Hill Drive, below the properties at 28130, 28120 and 28110 Riggs Hill Road.
The project is 89 percent complete, according to a Planning staff report, but due to a bank failure, funding needed to finish the development dried up and the previous approval expired.
The developers asked that the originally approved 23-lot, five-common-track subdivision be modified to 19 lots and four common tracts on the 12.16-acre parcel.
Neighbor Thelma Grewal, of 28120 Riggs Hill Drive, complained about water and mud runoff from the area and a 36-inch boulder that she said rolled down into her yard from the development last winter and hit her fence.
“There’s nothing in place to keep them from rolling down,” she said. “Fortunately, we had the fence. Otherwise, nothing would have kept it from hitting the house.”
The commission granted the request but adopted Wolthuis’ caution to developers that they need to take responsibility for damage to neighbors’ property caused by runoff and falling rocks.
The commission also approved two variances requested by Manuel Victor to allow manufactured homes to be placed on two properties, at 1900 and 1904 19th Ave.
The homes in question are too large for the parcels in question under city codes, but commissioners granted exceptions to garage or carport requirements, house size, lot size and roof slope requirements after Frank Walker of Salem and Luke Victor described improvements the Victors are making to the homes, including installing metal roofs, and how paved parking would be provided.
“This provides a niche in the housing market to provide affordable housing,” Walker told the commission.
Commissoners Lance Gatchell and Frank Javersak were not present at the meeting.