Aurora Historic Review Board Agenda March 26, 2020 Page 1

Agenda Aurora Historic Review Board Thursday, March 26, 2020, 7 P.M.

City Council Chambers, Aurora City Hall 21420 Main Street NE, Aurora, OR 97002

1. CALL TO ORDER OF THE AURORA HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD MEETING

2. ROLL CALL Chair Jan Peel Member Gayle Abernathy Member Ruthie Magnus Member Stephen Mikulic

Member Karen Townsend

3. VISITORS Anyone wishing to address the Aurora Historic Review Board concerning items not already on the meeting agenda may do so in this section. No decision or action will be made, but the Aurora Historic Review Board could look into the matter and provide some response in the future.

4. CONSENT AGENDA

a) Historic Review Board Minutes – February 27, 2020

5. CORRESPONDENCE a) Hazardous Tree Removal at 21391 Main St NE

6. NEW BUSINESS

a) Roof Replacement for the Miley House—21497 Highway 99E b) Window Frosting at Corporate Crime Control Association—21328 Highway 99E c) City Newsletter Content d) Planning Commission Recommendations on Proposed Code Updates

7. OLD BUSINESS

a) City Planner Input on AMC 17.28—Accessory Dwellings and Structures b) Discussion of Aurora Municipal Code (AMC) 17.24.110 through 17.24.130

8. ADJOURN

Aurora Historic Review Board Minutes February 27, 2020 Page 1

Minutes Aurora Historic Review Board Thursday, February 27, 2020, 7 P.M.

City Council Chambers, Aurora City Hall 21420 Main Street NE, Aurora, OR 97002

STAFF PRESENT: W. Scott Jorgensen, City Recorder STAFF ABSENT: None VISITORS PRESENT: Annie Harris, Aurora; Allen Trivitt, Aurora; Nancy Trivitt, Aurora

1. CALL TO ORDER OF THE AURORA HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD MEETING Chair Jan Peel called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL Chair Jan Peel-Present Member Gayle Abernathy-Absent Member Stephen Mikulic-Present

Member Karen Townsend-Present

3. VISITORS Parks Committee member Annie Harris said that group is looking at projects around town and is interested in making improvements to the downtown park area. She wants to know if there is anything that the HRB has envisioned to beautify, improve or maintain that space. Harris looked at open areas with Public Works Superintendent Mark Gunter to see who maintains them. Peel said it has been discussed by the HRB. Karen Townsend said ideas have come to the HRB. That is one of the few areas in town bordered by 19th Century buildings and she thinks anything there should be authentic. She envisions a large tree with a round wooden bench as a focal point. They asked for additional mowing and that was put in the landscaping contract. Peel said it would be nice to get the sprinklers fixed. Townsend suggested having a dog waste receptacle. Harris said the downtown park is in a right of way. Townsend said the city could change that designation and admits that the area could be cuter. City Recorder W. Scott Jorgensen suggested that the Parks Committee put together a plan and present it to the HRB. The HRB members agreed to that by consensus.

4. CONSENT AGENDA a) Historic Review Board Minutes – January 23, 2020

Townsend moved to approve the consent agenda as amended. That motion was seconded by Stephen Mikulic and adopted unanimously.

5. CORRESPONDENCE-N/A

6. NEW BUSINESS a) Signs for North Marion County Library—21553 Liberty St NE

Peel said the proposed “open” sign looks effective. Townsend said approval of that sign doesn’t require action from the HRB. Those kinds of signs are exempt, as one “open” sign is allowed. She suggests that there be more identification on the site. There could be a wood or metal sign with “North

Aurora Historic Review Board Minutes February 27, 2020 Page 2

Marion Community Library” on it. That sign could be displayed 24/7. Nancy Trivitt asked where that sign could be placed. Townsend suggested a 3x4 sign with open hours, the website and the library’s logo. Allen Trivitt said people might think the sign is saying the church is open. Townsend said the library is also allowed to have an “A frame” sign. Allen Trivitt said the property is downhill and people wouldn’t be able to see an “A frame” sign if cars were parked in front of the library. Townsend reiterated that a feather banner would not be legal. She suggested a flat sign on the building to identify the library 24/7 if the church will let them do it. Nancy Trivitt asked if they would have to file an application for another sign. Peel said the HRB needs to see a plan. There was a discussion about adding text to the approved “open” sign to identify the library. HRB members agreed by consensus that this would be acceptable and would not require their approval as a body.

b) Updated Development Project Timeline and Map Jorgensen reviewed the materials that were included in the meeting packet. The members of the HRB asked about the Conroy Classics project that is set to go before Planning Commission at its April meeting for a site development review. Jorgensen provided them with the plans that were submitted. HRB members reviewed the plans and said that they include fiber cement trim on the windows. Under Aurora Municipal Code 17.40.170, they need to be wood siding. HRB members asked that Jorgensen inform the project’s architect. He agreed to.

c) Business License Applications Jorgensen presented the revised form, which included suggested edits from Townsend.

7. OLD BUSINESS a) Code Updates Regarding Gates and Fences in the Historic District

HRB members agreed by consensus to include the following verbiage as a proposed section new section of code to be added to the end of 17.40.070:

E. Gates 1. Gates must be compatible in design, materials, colors, appearance and in proportion to adjoining fence. 2. Stand alone gates are permitted where no fencing is possible. Materials must be wood or metal and designed to be compatible with property structures.

b) Discussion of AMC 17.28—Accessory Dwellings and Structures

Townsend directed Jorgensen to ask City Planner Renata Wakeley how this section of code could be applied to structures in the city’s commercial zone.

c) New Member Discussion Mikulic moved to recommend that the city council appoint Ruthie Magnus to the vacant seat on the HRB. That motion was seconded by Townsend and adopted unanimously.

8. ADJOURN Peel adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m.

Aurora Historic Review Board Minutes February 27, 2020 Page 3

________________________________________ Jan Peel, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________________ W. Scott Jorgensen City Recorder

From: Scott CastlemanTo: RecorderSubject: RE: Detective Agency Window Signage QuestionDate: Monday, March 2, 2020 10:36:05 AM

Mr. Joregensen,

I have been meaning to touch bases with you but have been traveling frequently for work.

We have entered into a contract with Rugged Productions the producers of deadliest catch, thebachelor and a variety of other top rated television shows. They will be spending about a yearor longer filming a documentary of us and our firm. I would like to see if we can attend ameeting with the Historic Review board or obtain temporary permission to have the windowsignage for the duration of the filming. The window signage is what makes the office as apresentable detective agency. Without the signage it simply looks like a house and does notmake for good television.

Can you please present this to the committee and let me know what our options might be?

Thank you sir

-- Respectfully, Scott R. CastlemanCorporate Crime Control Association503-913-5594 This message is for the named recipient only. It may contain confidential, proprietary orlegally privileged information, and may be protected by Attorney-client privilege and/or theElectronic Communication Reporting Act, 18 USC §2510-2521. If the reader of this messageis not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,opening of any attachments, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If youhave received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return email, anddelete and/or destroy the original message along with any attachments from your computerwithout any further review or any distribution. We reserve the right to monitor all emailcommunications. Although we believe this email and any attachments are virus-free, we donot guarantee that it is virus-free, and we accept no liability for any loss or damage arisingfrom its use.

mailto:cccacastleman@gmail.commailto:Recorder@ci.aurora.or.us

Summary LA-2019-01 amendments

• Add Jenny Marie, Martin St, and Sayre Drive___ to Legacy Street designation in AMC and TSP

• Strike AMC 16.34.100 - Water system. Water systems shall be designed in accordance with the

provisions set forth by the City's public works design standards and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. The Planning Director and Public Works Director shall issue permits only where provisions for municipal water system extensions have been made, and: AMC 16.34.100.E. If required water mains will directly serve property outside the subdivision or development, the City will reimburse the sub-divider or developer an amount estimated to be the proportionate share of the cost for each connection made to the water mains by property owners outside the subdivision or development for a period of ten (10) years from the time of installation of the mains. The actual amount shall be as determined by the Planning Commission at the time of approval of the plat or development, considering construction costs.

• FROM HRB in 8/2019 (potentially more to follow):

HRB: Tall (4 ft or more), vertical banners, including those that are self-support are prohibited. “Air Dancers” and other inflated displays are prohibited. (See 9/2019 PC packet for additional comments)

Title 17- Does City want to review permitted uses under HCO- “eating and drinking establishment” and “retail store” or “general retailing” as a permitted use, but I don’t know that “liquor retailing” is singled out. I don’t believe any of them define “liquor store” so therefore, just considered to be permitted like any other retail store

HRB added comments in November 2019 agenda packet.

Update Definitions section, specifically townhomes. Should better reflect “Dwelling, Attached Single Family (townhouse). A dwelling unit located on its own lot that shares one or more common or abutting walls with one or more dwelling units on adjacent lots” or “means a swelling unit constructed in a row

Comment [r1]: Add a formula here for the 10% “outdoor display after hours =0.10 x total sq footage of retail business façade”. Questions about whether yard size should be a consideration in addition to width and length of façade.

or two or more attached units, where each dwelling unit is located on an individual lot or parcel and shares at least one common wall with the adjacent units.”

16.78.060- need to add Planning Director ability to approve minor modification to CUP and SDRs as the approval authority

HB 2001- need to remove parking requirements and owner occupied from ADUs as no longer permitted/illegal to require

Other municipal code updates

• Departmental routing forms • Amended/reduced SDC’s for ADU’s? • Update land use fee schedule • Discussion on potential amendment to PC Charter/By-laws to allow non-voting student member

and/or non-voting member from airport

From: Wakeley, RenataTo: Recorder; Joseph SchaeferCc: HOMEAGAIN9@aol.comSubject: RE: HRBDate: Thursday, March 5, 2020 9:33:30 AMAttachments: NCU-18-01 Staff Report.docx

HI Scott and Karen,

This is different from the Corcoran property as in the HCO zone and on the Corcoran property, theHCO zone allows one single-family residence, provided it is an accessory structure and cannot besold separately is permitted under the HCO zone (AMC 16.22.020.S) and a conditional use permit isnot required.

See attached staff report related to that decision. So, this is not about ADU’s. Is the concern that the current HCO zone allows a single-family residence outright now? I know wehave several of these in town so if we were to implement a change, you would be creating morenon-conforming uses. Renata Wakeley, Acting Executive Director/Community Development DirectorMid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments100 High Street SE, Suite 200Salem, OR 97301(ph) 503-540-1618(fx) 503-588-6094  

From: Karen Townsend [mailto:karen@timeaftertimeoregon.com] Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 6:26 PMTo: Recorder; HOMEAGAIN9@AOL.COMSubject: RE: HRB The ADU section refers to dwelling units and structures (that are accessory to the main buildingwhich may be commercial). For instance: We have a commercial lot with a commercial structure that is converting agarage/barn into an ADU for residential use (Aurora Birth Center). We struggled with the currentwording that should be tweaked to allow this. As it was, you also struggled with it as I remember. There may be other commercial lots with similar situations down the road or ones with a “structure”that needs more accommodating wording as our infill develops.Thanks,Karen

mailto:renatac@mwvcog.orgmailto:Recorder@ci.aurora.or.usmailto:JSchaefer@ci.aurora.or.usmailto:HOMEAGAIN9@aol.commailto:karen@timeaftertimeoregon.commailto:HOMEAGAIN9@AOL.COMCITY OF AURORA

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT:Nonconforming Use 2018-01 [NCU-18-01]

DATE:

APPLICANT/OWNER:Corcoran, LLC/Timothy and Susan Corcoran

REQUEST: Expansion of a non-conforming structure and conversion to a residential use.

SITE LOCATION:21358 Highway 99E

Map 041.W.13BA, Tax Lot 3100

SITE SIZE: 14,810 square feet, or 0.34 acres

DESIGNATION:Zoning: Historic Commercial Overlay (HCO)

16.30 Neighborhood Commercial Overlay

CRITERIA:Aurora Municipal Code (AMC) Chapters 16.14 Commercial (C), 16.22 Historic Commercial Overlay (HCO) and 16.62 Nonconforming Uses and Structures

ENCLOSURES:Exhibit A:Assessor Map

Exhibit B: Applicant’s Land Use Application

I.REQUEST

Remodel of an existing 368 square foot accessory structure to convert to an accessory residential

unit.

Expansion of the existing 368 square foot accessory structure, considered nonconforming, to a proposed 540 square foot accessory structure.

The accessory structure is considered an existing non-conforming structure as AMC 16.38.040.A. requires, “buffering and screening a minimum width of twenty (20) feet shall be required between any nonresidential use in a non-residential zone which abuts a residential use in a residential zone” and the existing accessory structure as accessory to the commercial use currently has a zero-side yard setback.

II.PROCEDURE

The AMC is silent on the notification requirements for nonconforming use applications although the criteria for expansion of nonconforming uses are provided under 16.62 - Nonconforming Uses and Structures. 16.10 allows the Planning Director to determine procedures or criteria if the code is silent. Staff has processed the application following the procedures under 16.76- Quasi-Judicial.

The application was received on October 18, 2018 and the application was determined incomplete by staff. Additional materials were received, and fees paid on November 6th and the application was determined complete. Notice was mailed to surrounding property owners on November 20, 2018 (15 days prior to the planning commission hearing) and published within the Canby Herald on November 28, 2018. The City has until March 5, 2019, or 120 days from acceptance of the application to approve, modify and approve, or deny this proposal.

III.APPEAL

Appeals are governed by AMC 16.76.260. An appeal of the Commission's decision shall be made, in writing, to the City Council within 15 days of the Planning Commission’s final written decision.

IV.CRITERIA AND FINDINGS

The applicable review criteria for Nonconforming Uses are found in AMC Chapter 16.62-

Nonconforming Uses. AMC 16.040.030 Defines a Nonconforming structure as “a structure the size,

dimensions or location of which were lawful prior to the adoption, revision or amendment to a zoning

ordinance, but which fails to meet the present requirements of the zoning district.”

AMC 16.62 outlines the review criteria for alteration of nonconforming structure as follows:

Permitted as accessory in the HRO zone (need a CUP permit for the accessory dwelling?)

16.62.030Alteration of nonconforming uses or structure.

As used in this section, alteration of a nonconforming use or structure including a change in use of structure of no greater adverse impact to the neighborhood. Expansion of nonconforming structures may be allowed by the planning commission subject to the following:

A.The applicant shall demonstrate that such expansion will not result in any greater adverse impact upon other property than is currently the case;

FINDING: The property is zoned Commercial with a Historic Commercial Overlay (HCO). Properties to the north and south are zoned a mix of residential and commercial. Property to the west is commercial and residential to the east. One single-family residence, provided it is an accessory structure and cannot be sold separately is permitted under the HCO zone (AMC 16.22.020.S) and a conditional use permit is not required.

AMC 16.54.040.E. allows, “The size of the accessory dwelling unit may be no more than fifty (50) percent

of the living area of the principal building or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is less”. The

applicant is proposing a 540 square foot structural footprint for the main floor and a 540 square foot addition

to the 2nd floor for a total of 1080 square feet. Staff finds the limitation does not apply in this case as a

single-family residence is permitted outright in the zone and an accessory dwelling unit is defined as, “An

accessory dwelling unit may be added to any single-family detached dwelling or manufactured home in any

residential (R) zoning district” under AMC 16.54.020.A.  

The applicant also proposed additional windows and a 2nd story to be added to the existing

structure.

Staff finds the proposed use as an accessory residence is permitted. Surrounding property owners were mailed notice of the pending application on November 20th and provided an opportunity to comment.

Pending comments from surrounding property owners, staff finds this criterion can be met.

In order to approve the proposed expansion, the Planning Commission will need to determine whether the proposed increase into the required setback and the conversion of the shed to a dwelling unit is of greater adverse impact upon other property than is currently the case.

B.There shall be no increase in any conformity with dimensional requirements as a result of the expansion;

FINDING: Staff finds the proposed expansion may be considered an increase in the non-conformance of the zero-side yard setback since side yard setbacks in HCO zone require “buffering and screening a minimum width of twenty (20) feet shall be required between any nonresidential use in a non-residential zone which abuts a residential use in a residential zone” (AMC 16.38.040.A). Currently, the shed or storage is considered accessory to the on-site commercial uses on the commercially zoned property. Therefore, staff has determined that a twenty-foot setback is required since the property directly to the south of the existing accessory structure abuts residential to the south.

However, AMC 16.38.040.A requires “buffering and screening a minimum width of twenty (20) feet shall be required between any nonresidential use in a non-residential zone which abuts a residential use in a residential zone”.

The Planning Commission will need to determine whether the proposed residential unit is a residential use that is not subject to the twenty (20) foot buffering and screening (we know the subject property is a non-residential zone that abuts a residential use in a residential zone).

If the Planning Commission determines that the existence of the current accessory structure along the zero-lot line side yard and the proposed expansion westward is in keeping with the current pre-existing legal non-conforming structure and the conversion to a residential use is not an expansion/increase of nonconformity of the setback requirement, the Planning Commission can determine that this criterion is met.

C.Only one such expansion shall be permitted in any five-year period commencing on December 27, 1988;

FINDING: The city has no record of an expansion of nonconforming structures on the subject property within the past five years. Staff recommends the applicant be required to submit to the City a signed statement acknowledging the code restriction of only one such expansion of a nonconforming structures shall be permitted within any five-year period commencing from the date of this approval, shall it occur.

Staff finds this condition can be met, with conditions.

D.No expansion shall result in a structure with a footprint greater than one hundred fifty (150) percent of the original structure;

FINDING: The applicant proposes to expand the existing 368 square foot accessory structure to a proposed 540 square foot accessory structure (main floor) footprint. This would result in an increase of 172 square feet to the main floor, or 47 percent increase.

While the applicant does propose an increase to a new 2nd story of 540 square feet, which in total, would exceed the 150 percent limitation, the criteria speaks to expansion of the footprint only staff finds this condition is met.

E.The nonconformity shall not be expanded onto any property which is not now part of one contiguous tract in common ownership, or which was not part of such a contiguous tract in common ownership on December 27, 1988;

FINDING: The accessory structure is on one contiguous tract in common ownership. Staff finds this condition is met.

F.In allowing such an expansion, the planning commission may impose all such conditions and requirements as may be reasonably necessary to assure that there shall be no increase in the adverse impact of such nonconforming use upon other property within the district; and

FINDING: At the time of drafting of the staff report, staff has not received comments or concerns from those that received notification of the subject application.

In addition to general compliance with all City of Aurora and State of Oregon development, building and fire codes as included as a recommended condition of approval below, if the proposed expansion is approved, staff recommends a minimum fire separation distance of three (3) feet be required for the structural wall to the south. This would require the recording of a no-build easement of a minimum of three (3) feet along the abutting property to the south. While the HRO zoned property to the south has a five foot (5) minimum side yard setback (AMC 16.20.040.C.2), the recording of said no-build easement along the proposed accessory structure will ensure any structures that may be exempted from city review or permitted requirements are not placed within three (3) feet of the non-conforming structure for fire safety.

G.Nothing in this title shall be deemed to preclude the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition any building or part thereof found to be unsafe by any official charged with protecting the public or to prohibit ordinance repairs provided that the volume of the building and the land area occupied by such building remain the same as that which existed on December 27, 1988.

FINDING: Staff finds that the approval of an expansion of the nonconforming structure shall not reduce the safety of the structure. Building/structural permit approval shall be required, including but not limited to fire code approval and requirements. Staff finds these criterion does not apply.

V.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings in the staff report, staff finds AMC criteria 16.62.030 can be met and staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed expansion of the non-conforming accessory structure to a 540 square foot residential accessory structure with the following recommended conditions of approval:

1) Develop the subject property in accordance with plans approved by the city.

2) Comply with all City of Aurora and State of Oregon development, building and fire codes.

3) The applicant shall submit to the City of Aurora a signed statement acknowledging the code restriction of only one such expansion of a nonconforming use/structure shall be permitted within any five-year period commencing from the date of this approval.

4) A minimum fire separation distance of three (3) feet shall be required for the structural wall to the south and a no-build easement of a minimum of three (3) feet along the abutting property to the south shall be recorded prior to any additional permit reviews for the structure.

5) The City of Aurora shall not issue additional permits related to this decision until all land development and other fees, including any additional charges related to the decision are paid in full by the applicant or their representative. Contact the City of Aurora at 503-678-1283 for information on the balance on the subject application.

VI.PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

A) Approve the request for a Nonconforming Use (File No. NCU-18-01) to allow the expansion of a 364 square foot non-conforming accessory structure to a 540 square foot accessory structure:

1. As recommended by staff, or

2. As determined by the Planning Commission stating how the application satisfies all the required criteria, and any revisions to the recommended conditions of approval, or

1. Deny the Nonconforming Use (File No. NCU-18-01) to allow the expansion of a 364 square foot non-conforming accessory structure to a 540 square foot accessory structure stating how the application does not satisfy the required criteria.

2. Continue the hearing to a time certain or indefinitely (considering the 120-day limit on applications).

NCU-18-01 CorcoranPage 4

From: Recorder [mailto:Recorder@ci.aurora.or.us] Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 2:50 PMTo: Karen Townsend; HOMEAGAIN9@AOL.COMSubject: FW: HRB

 

From: Wakeley, Renata [mailto:renatac@mwvcog.org] Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 2:48 PMTo: RecorderSubject: RE: HRB I want to make sure I understand the question. Are they asking about a commercial property anduse? AMC 17.28.020.A states, “An accessory dwelling unit may be added to any single-familydetached dwelling in this historic residential overlay” so that means ADU’s are not permitted unlessyou have a single-family detached structure. If they are wanting a permissive use, I would need to know under which conditions they would wantto allow an ADU. For example, we still have some historic residential uses in the HCO and if theywanted to be permissive in the HCO, we could just say that if you have a single-family dwelling in theHCO, you could add an ADU but I am not clear on their intent.

Maybe send the above email to the HRB Chair to get further clarification and then I can reply quicklyin order to provide a response for their March meeting.Renata

From: Recorder Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 2:05 PMTo: Wakeley, Renata Subject: HRB Renata, The HRB is reviewing code for the sake of making its contribution to the next round of updates. Theydiscussed the attached section at their meeting Thursday night and directed me to ask you how youfeel this could be applied to the city’s commercial area. I will include your input in the packet fortheir March meeting. W. Scott Jorgensen, Executive MPACity RecorderCity of Aurora21420 Main Street NEAurora, OR 97002503-678-1283

mailto:Recorder@ci.aurora.or.usmailto:HOMEAGAIN9@AOL.COMmailto:renatac@mwvcog.orgmailto:Recorder@ci.aurora.or.usmailto:renatac@mwvcog.org

Fax 503-678-2758 PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSUREThis email is a public record of the City of Aurora, Oregon and is subject to public disclosureunless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. This email is subject to the StateRetention Schedule.CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICEThis e-mail message contains confidential information belonging to the sender or receiver. Theinformation in this message is intended for the addressee’s use only. If you are not the intendedrecipient you are hereby notified that you are prohibited from reading, using, disclosing, copying,or distributing this information in any way; further, you are prohibited from taking any actionbased upon the contents of this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please deleteit immediately. For further questions call our office at 503-678-1283 ext. 2.   CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended solely for the use of the individualand entity to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable state and federal laws. If you arenot the addressee, or are not authorized to receive information for the intended addressee, youare hereby notified that you may not use, copy, distribute, or disclose to anyone this messageor the information contained herein. If you have received this message in error, please advisethe sender immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank youCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended solely for the use of the individualand entity to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable state and federal laws. If you arenot the addressee, or are not authorized to receive information for the intended addressee, youare hereby notified that you may not use, copy, distribute, or disclose to anyone this messageor the information contained herein. If you have received this message in error, please advisethe sender immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you

17.24.110 - Nonconforming signs.

All signs existing on the date of adoption of the ordinance codified in this title, and not conforming with the provisions of this chapter are deemed nonconforming signs, except those signs approved by the Historic Review Board after October 26, 1995.

A. No nonconforming sign shall be changed, expanded or altered in any manner which would increase the degree of its nonconformity, or be structurally altered to prolong its useful life, or be moved in whole or in part to any other location where it would remain nonconforming.

B. Termination of Nonconforming Signs.

1. Immediate Termination. Nonconforming signs which advertise a business no longer conducted or a product no longer sold on the premises where such sign is located shall be terminated within thirty (30) days after the effective date of said ordinance.

2. Termination by Change of Business. Any nonconforming sign advertising or relating to a business on the premises on which it is located shall be terminated upon any change in the ownership or control of such business.

(Ord. 473, § 3, 2013; Ord. 419 §§ 20, 23I, 2002: Ord. 416 § 8.50.100, 2002)

17.24.120 - Termination of signs by abandonment.

A. Obsolete Business Signs. Any sign advertising or relating to a business, except a regular seasonal business, on the premises on which it is located, which business is discontinued for a period of thirty (30) consecutive days, regardless of any intent to resume or not to abandon such use, shall be presumed to be abandoned and all such signage, whether conforming or nonconforming to the provisions of this title shall be removed within thirty (30) days thereafter. Any period of such non-continuance caused by government actions, strikes, materials shortages or acts of God, and without any contributing fault by the business or user, shall not be considered in calculating the length of discontinuance for purposes of this subsection.

B. Appeal. An extension of time for removal of signage of an abandoned business, not to exceed an additional thirty (30) days, may be granted by the City Council upon an appeal filed by the legal owner of the premises or person in control of the business.

(Ord. 473, § 3, 2013; Ord. 416 § 8.50.110, 2002)

17.24.130 - Relief from sign standards.

The Historic Review Board may grant relief from strict compliance with standards contained in this chapter in cases where documented evidence suggests it is impossible or impractical to comply with the standard for one or more of the reasons set forth in the preceding subsections. The facts and conclusions relied upon to grant relief from a particular standard shall clearly be set forth in the final order of the Historic Review Board.

A. Exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, which conditions are a result of building location or style, or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control make strict compliance impossible or impractical; or

B. Relief from the standard for reason set forth, will result in equal or greater compatibility with the architectural style and features, which exist on the building or nearby historical buildings; or relief is necessary to restore or replace a sign in a way which is historically accurate or compatible.

(Ord. 473, § 3, 2013; Ord. 416 § 8.50.120, 2002)

01 HRB 20200326 agendaAgenda1. CALL TO ORDER OF THE AURORA HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD MEETING3. VISITORS4. CONSENT AGENDA5. CORRESPONDENCEa) Hazardous Tree Removal at 21391 Main St NE6. NEW BUSINESSa) Roof Replacement for the Miley House—21497 Highway 99Eb) Window Frosting at Corporate Crime Control Association—21328 Highway 99Ec) City Newsletter Contentd) Planning Commission Recommendations on Proposed Code Updates7. OLD BUSINESSb) Discussion of Aurora Municipal Code (AMC) 17.24.110 through 17.24.1308. ADJOURN

02 HRB 20200227 draft minutesMinutes1. CALL TO ORDER OF THE AURORA HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD MEETING3. VISITORS4. CONSENT AGENDA5. CORRESPONDENCE-N/A6. NEW BUSINESSa) Signs for North Marion County Library—21553 Liberty St NEPeel said the proposed “open” sign looks effective. Townsend said approval of that sign doesn’t require action from the HRB. Those kinds of signs are exempt, as one “open” sign is allowed. She suggests that there be more identification on the site. Th...b) Updated Development Project Timeline and MapJorgensen reviewed the materials that were included in the meeting packet. The members of the HRB asked about the Conroy Classics project that is set to go before Planning Commission at its April meeting for a site development review. Jorgensen provid...c) Business License ApplicationsJorgensen presented the revised form, which included suggested edits from Townsend.7. OLD BUSINESS8. ADJOURN

03 Tree Removal Letter04 Tree Removal05 Miley House Roof Replacement Application06 Detective Agency Window Signage Question07 TRACKING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR LA-2020-01 after 3 3 2020 PC mtg08 RE_ HRB09 17.24.110___Nonconforming_signs.10 17.24.120___Termination_of_signs_by_abandonment.11 17.24.130___Relief_from_sign_standards.