07/15/1968 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

279~ .. 7/15/68 . Phyllis Earley, 3945 Mill Street, requested the Council to keep in mind that signs are not the only means of attracting customers. Les Orchard, Orchard Auto Parts Company, mentioned that Medford's restriction to a 4-foot projection has resulted in too many signs with no improvement either in seeing the signs or in the appearance of the City. Ray Wolfe presented petitions signed by about 1200 residents of Eugene supporting the proposed ordinance and in favor of restrictions establishing the purpose of signs for identification, adequate limitation of size and projection, allowing billboards with density controls only in present highway oriented districts, establishing a review com- mittee to evaluate signs over a basic maximum size, and designating lay people as mem- bers of an appeals board. Leonard Frojen, architect, presented slides illustrating "blanketing" and said he felt signs in the downtown area should be pedestrian oriented only. .. Jim Potterf, 2685 Floral Hill Drive, expressed the opinion that downtown businessmen should not have to be regulated. Bill Maddron, 1949 East 28th, favored adoption of the proposed ordinance. He appealed to the Council for protection for those people who do not wish to use large, flamboyant . signs and for the aesthetic value of restrictions on sign size and projection. Albert Strobel, 1010 West 28th, said that downtown Madison, Wisconsin is "coming back" . after prohibition of projecting signs in the downtown area. He said the citizens of that city voted through their council representatives to adopt a sign ordinance when Mr. Potterf inquired if the Eugene sign ordinance would be voted upon by the people. Mr. Strobel suggested use of symbols rather than words to identify merchants. Councilman Wingard said because he would be faced with conflict of interest on part of the proposed ordinance, he would like to see it approved section by section. He moved, seconded by Dr. Purdy, to amend the motion to adopt each major section of the ordinance separately. Motion carried. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mrs. Lauris to adopt Section 1 - Title, Scope and Purpose. Motion carried. . Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mrs. Hayward to adopt Section 2 - Sign Standards by Geographical Area. Mr. Frojen asked the Council to consider providing a restriction of five square feet with two-inch projection in Section 2.ll-A-l (covered in Diagram A) for small signs below 8' 6" level. Mrs. Niven said the Planning Commission has reviewed this request and felt no change was needed. Mr. Orchard said he felt reduction in sign size will decrease tax revenues and adversely affect the County's tax structure and the economy of the County and City. Mr. Strobel said a great deal of revenue in Hawaii is derived from the tourist trade, yet Hawaii allows no billboards at all. e Ray Wolfe referred to Section 2.l1-A-2 - Occupancy Area - and what he felt was discrimination to neighboring businesses when second-floor space is relinquished to a first-floor tennant thereby providing a larger sign area. He felt it weakened the ordinance through future re- use of the second-floor area. Mrs. Niven said the Planning Commission did not consider the point of second- and third-floor vacancies. She also said projecting signs were al- lowed because it was felt businesses occupying buildings with narrow frontages would be at a disadvantage if only flat signs were allowed if located next to a wider frontage with '* its larger wall space. Section 2.12 - Signs Where Buildings Are Set Back From Property Lines - was discussed. Joe Richards objected to the restriction on height of pole signs as written in this section. Mr. Herbert recommended that the Council eliminate roof signs as permitted use in Section 2.12-E, instead including them in Section 3.1 - Special Permit Signs. He said such signs clutter and disrupt the architectural merit of a building and are an impediment to fight- ing fires which may occur. Mrs. Niven, in answer to a question from Councilman Lassen, said there was no problem and no conflict with the Building Code so far as the restrictions set on this type of sign. Mr. Johnston said the sign industry felt the 20-foot height limit is too restrictive and . suggested a 30-foot limit. He also suggested that area limitations for signs for setback buildings be 6" for every vertical foot with a height limitation of 15 feet above the roof line. . Section 2.2 - Integrated Neighborhood Shopping District. Shopping centers to which this section applies were pointed out on the Sign District Map. Ral Cross objected to the re- quired 50-foot setback from the property line. Joe Richards, representing the New Car Dealers Association, objected to the height and size restrictions provided in Section 2.3 - Outlying Commercial District. He presented a Ford Motor Company dealership idenitification program brochure and showed slides and photographs to illustrate that addedheight does not make a sign incompatible with the surroundings and that more clutter is caused by utility poles and wires than by signs. He said allowable sign sizes should be increased by 50% to be more compatible with what can be done with identification and asked exemption of existing .. signs which do not conform to the new requirements until they are removed or need replacement. 7/15/68 - 2 ....