|
<br />-.'-
<br />
<br />27'S
<br />
<br />.
<br />7/15/68
<br />
<br />r:
<br />"
<br />I'
<br />,; Eugene, Oregon
<br />I: Council Chamber
<br />I' ,
<br />II July 15, 1968 .
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />!' Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the meeting
<br />1. held July 8, 1968 - was called to order at 7:30 p.m~ on July 15, 1968 in the Council Chamber by His
<br />Honor Mayor Edwin E. Cone with the following councilmen present: Mr. Anderron, Mrs. Lauris, Messrs.
<br />Purdy, McNutt, and Lassen, Mrs.Hayward, and Messrs. McDonald and Wingard.
<br />I:
<br />
<br />, I, Council Bill No. 8571 - Regulating signs in the city of Eugene; submitted and read in full.
<br />
<br />Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mrs. Lauris to adopt the proposed sign ordin~nce as submitted by the
<br />Planning Commission and approved at its meeting of June 25, 1968, and that the bill be read the second
<br />time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council.
<br />
<br />Betty Niven, Planning Commission chairman, explained the background and general philosophy
<br />of the proposed sign ordinance; She said the ordinance was preparedwith,t~e-objectof,im-
<br />proving visibility of identification signs'by removing as many other distracting signs as
<br />possible without being discriminatory, and to bring an element of order to those areas ..,
<br />where signs are used.
<br />
<br />Discussion started on Section 2.C. - ,Sign Standards by Geographical Area. A sign district
<br />map was shown which Mrs. Niven explained was prepared to reflect actual sign use and compe-
<br />tition rather than by orienting signs to zoning districts.
<br />
<br />:' Roger Emmons, executive secretary of the Council of Outdoor Advertising, said their comments 4It
<br />I, .
<br />wou~d be withheld until' Section 6 - Billboard Signs and Other Off-Premise Si~ns - is under ..
<br />discussion. ~/'
<br />
<br />Introduction to Section 2.1 - Pedestrian-Auto District - was read. Mrs. Niven explained
<br />, that no previous draft of the ordinanceallowecl only.wall signs, and that a la-year amortiza-
<br />tion period is al10wed for projecting signs, with a 5-year limit on al1' others.
<br />
<br />Counciaman Wingard asked for explanation of the ground rules. He said it was his understanding the
<br />i' ordinance wa~ to be taken a section at a time, and that objections could be presented as' the' sections
<br />" were disOl ssed.
<br />
<br />i' Charles Johnston, manager of Federal Sign and Signal Company, said the industry felt the 4' 2"
<br />projection limit too restrictive and would result in taking down 100% of ~xisting signs ov~r .
<br />1, a la-year period. He displayed examples of various sizes 'of lettering 'on a 4' 2" area, and ~
<br />I, asked that the limit be changed to alloy;r" 8' 2" ,projection, or at t.he very least, 7' 2" .
<br />
<br />Dan Herbert, architect, recommended that the compliance time for projecting signs be based
<br />from the time of installation. He said it is possible there will be many non-conforming
<br />signs which will remain in existence with the result that there-may be a large number of
<br />required changes at one time after ten years. He maintained the 4-foot projection allows
<br />better visibility and that available options on degree of projection would allow propor-
<br />tionately larger lettering.
<br />
<br />James Pearson, Planning Commission member, said the decision for a 4-foot restriction was
<br />based on the economic utilization of materials which are manufactured in 4- and 8-foot .
<br />" modules. He said the amortization period was set at ten years to give both merchants and _
<br />the sign industry ,the absolute minimum of economic hardship since evidence indicated more
<br />than 90% of the signs in the City are leased on 5-year contracts. He named several cities
<br />where no projection of signs is allowed.
<br />
<br />George Boehnke, Boehnke Printing Company, suggested staggering heights of signs for greater
<br />visibility. John Tiffany, Tiffany-Davis Company, said,he felt the sign ,size fo~ a business ~
<br />should not be restricted in relation to the frontage of the building occupied. ~/
<br />
<br />Hal Cross, Martin Bros. Sign Company, objected to prohibition of projecting corner signs
<br />at street intersections. He said this restriction would require -a merchant to build a
<br />sign for each street, where one corner'sign would suffice to att~act the two traffic pat-
<br />terns, and that interference with temporary decorations at corners is not a valid reason
<br />for the restriction. The Superintendent of Building Inspection explained that decorations
<br />and temporary installations would not be considered conflicts, but that a street cor~er is
<br />the point of maximum conflict'with other utilities and traffic control devices and that
<br />sign clearance becomes a problem.
<br />
<br />Ray Wolfe, member of the Metro Civic Club ad hoc,committee on sign control, said he felt
<br />the 4-footrestriction on projection would benefit the individual businessman, since it .
<br />would cut competition to acquire larger signs. He asked if the Planning Commission had ~
<br />considered allowing no projection at all, since he felt the legibility of flat wall signs
<br />was greater. .tI
<br />
<br />Councilman Purdy asked about the normal. sign coverage on a one-story building if the facade
<br />is raised. The Superintendent of , Building Inspe ction said architectural elements of a
<br />1 building would 'allow greater projection than on an average building.-
<br />I
<br />
<br />In response to a question from Councilman Anderson, Mr. Johnston said that 25 signs.in the
<br />City could be altered to conform to a 7'IZf.. restriction, whereas they would 'have to be re-
<br />moved under the 4'2" restriction. He said even with the 10% leeway allowed under the pro-
<br />posed Code, the sign industry still prefers 8' 2" projection." ~rs. Niven said she wanted.
<br />it made clear that no consideration was given to allowing the 10% leeway on 8' 2" projections- ~
<br />~ that the 1eeway'of 10% applies only to non-conforming 'signs.
<br />~ '7/l5/68 - 1
<br />
|