December 14, 1999
JOINT BCC/LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioners' Conference Room - 5:30 p.m.
Commissioner Bobby Green, Sr., presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Anna Morrison, Peter Sorenson and Cindy Weeldreyer present. County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
a. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. 10-99 Amending Chapters 10 and 16 of Lane Code to Add Provisions Prohibiting Off-Premise Signs Along the South Lane Scenic Byway Tour Route (LC 10.025 and 16.005).
Lane County Planning Commission: Clay Myers, presided with Carrieanne Davis, Marion Esty, Pauline Rughani, Steve Moe, Juanita Kirkham and Delbert Phelps.
Jim Mann, Land Management, reported the designation of the route would be a way for the County to promote tourism in the area and the benefits would be included on some of the state maps and brochures advertising the area. He said in order to get the tour route designation from the state, they required that the County to expressly prohibit off-premise signs in the Countys zoning ordinances. He noted the ordinances for Chapter 10 apply to a small area within the urban growth boundary on Row River Road and the rural zoning outside of the urban growth boundary in the rural area. He noted that off-premise signs are not permitted in the zoning provisions that authorize the County to permit off-premise signs except in the industrial zone, allowing billboards on the property. He said when the state looked at Lane Countys zoning provisions, they wouldnt go along with the tour route designation until off-premise signs are prohibited. He said the ordinance they have was a models they worked from prohibiting the signs on adjacent property and property within 660 feet of the right-of-way of the tour route. He said they are proposing in Chapter 16 and Chapter 10 provisions that would apply to the South Lane Tour Route only, that would clarify that off-premise signs are not allowed with 660 feet of the right-of-way. He added property owners within 750 feet of the South Lane Tour Route were notified and as a result of that, there were a number of telephone calls asking what was meant by off-premise signs. He said it means that signs can be advertising a lawfully permitted use on private property. He added there are provisions in Lane Code that talk about the size of the sign, but signs cannot be for uses that would advertise a business or that would occur on a different piece of property.
Weeldreyer noted that near the BMX Track in Cottage Grove, they generate revenue to keep and maintain their track by having advertisers signs on the outside fence that faces Row River Road.
Mann said the way they interpret the code is that the code doesnt authorize off-premise signs.
Vorhes stated that the ordinance speaks to new or relocated off-premise signs and if the signs are authorized now, they would not be covered unless new ones were put up or relocated.
Mann stated the code had been interpreted consistently to not allow off-premise signs, only in zones that expressly allow billboard advertising. He said if the property owners are doing that now, there is a question whether they are grandfathered under the current zoning. He added there was a discussion about sign ordinances in 1984, after Lane Code was adopted, that specifies the County could embark on developing a sign ordinance.
Delbert Phelps, noted on page 9, under the outdoor advertising control, strategies suggested by the state, allowing for small gaps in the route.
Chair Meyers opened up the Public Hearing.
Eric Lane, 77859 Mosby Creek Road, stated if the County was interested in adding tourism to Cottage Grove, they will anger all the businesses in town with the sign ordinance. He suggested to change the route to Sears Road, starting it another two blocks down the road.
Bud Highcamp, 35655 Shorview Drive, Cottage Grove, stated he has had a small business since 1985 and he is seven miles out of town. He said without a sign along the road, people would not be able to find his business.
Mervin Maline, 33906 Waldon Lane, stated he has property within 660 feet and the property adjoins the road. He said this would be step one in the process of limitations of businesses. He said he has no objection to the signs.
Morrison stated she had concerns about eliminating all signage as being in the best interest for the city of Cottage Grove.
Weeldreyer explained that businesses could apply to the Oregon Tourism Council as an option in the future.
Delbert Phelps stated there is criteria that has to fit and there are businesses that may or may not exist along the road that cannot get those signs. He said when tourists travel a route of highway that long, they need services and the way the ordinance is written, if one of those businesses people wanted to locate in an area that doesnt adjoin the road that person is out of luck. He added with this type of ordinance, it forces all businesses to go up towards the tourist scenic byway instead of the back of the road, to keep the scenic beauty. He said he didnt think this was the right direction. He said the County needs to designate gaps in the route that allow these types of activities to happen for signs, so tourists can find things to do.
Weeldreyer reported that the McKenzie Valley is looking at being a scenic byway to connect with the National Scenic Byway that goes through the Willamette Forest from Estacada, south. She said this designation is important and it is the states policy and with the exception of the gaps that allow for some non-conforming existing uses, she doesnt know how much flexibility the County will have. She noted that they are on a time crunch to get into next years publication for the states scenic byways. She suggested that there could be a provision made legislatively that would be more global and provide that type of signage, but still allowing the process to go forward.
There being no one further signed up to speak, Chair Clay closed the Public Hearing.
Phelps said he was in favor of the concept, but not the wording of the ordinance. He said the ordinance needs more work with specific areas that relate to certain zoning so properties off the road could have signage. He said he wouldnt vote for the ordinance.
Lloyd Holtcamp, Public Works, stated they are trying to get this done by the end of the year or it may not be able to be on any maps for next year.
Weeldreyer reported that this came up in 1998 at the end of the year and Cottage Grove had expedited their ordinance to accommodate Lane Countys.
Phelps suggested to allow for gaps to be designated as needed in the future. He suggested having two or three gaps and to state where they would be. He said that scenario fits for him.
Van Vactor noted that the Planning Commission makes the recommendation to the Board, but the Board could adopt the ordinance as long as there are not substantial changes.
Carrieanne Davis stated it was an adequate and well-written ordinance that allows variances and moved that the Planning Commission adopt Ordinance 10-99 and advise the Board of Commissioners that they favor them adopting the ordinance.
MOTION: to adopt Ordinance 10-99.
Davis MOVED, Rughani SECONDED.
Phelps added the recommendation to the commissioners that they consider in their mapping for that route, at least three gaps to be determined.
Green asked how hard it would be to identify the gaps.
Mann responded it would be a straightforward process to see which areas are zoned industrial or commercial along the tour route. He said he knows one piece of industrial property and it goes back within the urban growth boundary. He asked if new notice to property owners needed to be given.
Vorhes stated if the change is in terms of identification of the gaps in connection with adopting this ordinance, but coming back with another ordinance that would amend this to specify where the gaps are, ODOTs rules allow for it. He said currently it is designed to cover all property along the specified route and there are no gaps in that description. He added specific action would needed to be taken to recognize the areas where there would be gaps. He suggested to roll this to a Third Reading and Deliberation tomorrow, to look at the significance of the change as to whether it is substantial or not.
MOTION: to move to a Third Reading and Deliberation on December 15, 1999 at 12:00 p.m.
Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
Sorenson noted a successor was chosen for Steve Moe and he thanked Moe for all of his years of service to Lane County.
There being no further business, Commissioner Green adjourned the meeting for the Lane County Board of Commissioners at 7:00 p.m.
Rughani suggested to have CPR training for the Planning Commission and other advisory groups.
Van Vactor stated it was a good suggestion to bring back to the Board to extend CPR to the advisory boards and committee members.
Planning Commission - September 7, 1999
Rughani noted the minutes stated she abstained but didn't abstain on approval of the July 15 minutes.
MOTION: to approve the Minutes of September 7, 1999 as corrected.
Esty MOVED, Davis SECONDED.
VOTE: 6-0 ( Steve Moe didn't vote because he didn't attend).
September 21, 1999 (Work Session)
MOTION: to approve the Minutes of September 21, 1999 - Work Session.
Esty MOVED, Phelps SECONDED
VOTE: 5-0 (Davis and Myers abstaining).
September 21, 1999 (Joint Session)
MOTION: to approve the Minutes of September 21, 1999 - Joint Session
Phelps MOVED, Esty SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-0 (Rughani, Myers and Davis abstaining).
October 5, 1999
Davis noted a change, when discussing Mr. White's request for change, she did not say that on page 3 he could sleep on the ground, she said he could sleep in the barn.
MOTION: to approve the amended minutes of October 5, 1999.
Phelps MOVED, Esty SECONDED
VOTE: 4-0 (Myers, Kirkham and Moe abstaining).
October 19, 1999
MOTION: to approve the Minutes of October 19, 1999.
Phelps MOVED, Rughani SECONDED.
VOTE: 5-0 (Davis and Rughani abstaining).
Back to Board Notices
|Contact the firstname.lastname@example.org||Read the Lane County Liability Disclaimer and User Agreement|
|Copyright © 1997 Lane County Information Services. All rights reserved.|