|
<br /> II": I
<br /> 30~
<br /> .
<br /> 7/29/68 =
<br /> il
<br /> I
<br /> r
<br /> " Council Chamber I
<br /> Eugene, Oregon .
<br /> July 29, 1968
<br /> Adjourned meeting of' the Common Council of the city of Eugene,. Oregon - adjourned f~om the meeting
<br /> held July 22, 1968 - was called to order at 7:30 p.m. on July 29, 1968 in the Council Chamber by
<br /> His Honor Mayor Edwin E. Cone with the following councilmen present: Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Lauris,
<br /> Messrs. Purdy, McNutt, and ,Lassen, Mrs.' Hayward, and Messrs. McDonald and Wingard.
<br /> NEW BUSINESS
<br /> 1, Bids, Public Works, Opened July 29, 1968
<br /> Project and Name of Bidder Contract Cos t per Cost to Amount
<br /> Cost Sq .Ft/Frnt Ft City Budgeted
<br /> Sanitary Sewer Sealing Project #2
<br /> between Madison and Tyler, 16th
<br /> to 22nd
<br /> Gelco Grouting Service $ 34,168.20 $ 34,168.20 $ 50,; 000. 00 .
<br /> The Penetryn System, Inc. 45,479.58
<br /> Completion Date: February 1, 1969
<br /> The Public Works Department recomIDended award of contract to Gelco Grouting Service on
<br /> their bid price of $34,168.20. .
<br /> ,; Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to award the contract as recommended. Rollcall vote. All
<br /> councilmen present voting aye, motion carried. ..
<br /> I Resignation, Councilman McNutt - Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Dr. Purdy to accept the
<br /> 2,
<br /> resignation of Councilman McNutt to be effective as soon as the City Council selects a
<br /> replacement for the unexpired term ending January 6, 1969. Motion carried.
<br /> It was agreed that the Council would meet at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, August 1, 1968, to
<br /> consider names submitted by Council members and select a replacement.
<br /> 3 Council Bill No. 8571 - Sign Ordinance (Hearing continued from July 2Q, 1968)
<br /> Mrs. Betty Niven presented changes recommended by the Planning Commission as a result of ,4
<br /> changes requested by the New Car Dealers Association. Addition of a new paragraph to
<br /> Section 2 - Sign Standards - was suggested: "When a single business exists on parcels
<br /> separated by an existing street, each parcel shall be treated separately for signing
<br /> purposes." Addition of a new paragraph to Section 2.12 C was suggested: "Where a free-
<br /> standing sign is used as the principal sign on a business location with more than 200
<br /> feet of continuous street frontage on one street, a second free-standing sign, limited
<br /> to fifty (50) square feet in sign area and twenty (20) feet in height, is permitted."
<br /> Other material was presented from Eugene Motel Owners Association; Martin Bros. Signs,
<br /> Inc. , Oregon Outdoor Advertising Association; Lew Williams Chevrolet; and the Metro
<br /> Civic Club Ad Hoc Committee for Better Sign Control - all recommending changes or amend-
<br /> ments to various sections of the proposed ordinance. A statement was presented from the .
<br /> League of Women Voters substantially supporting the ordinance as recommended by the
<br /> Planning Commission.
<br /> Councilman McDonald inquired about the Renewal Agency's sign regulations for the Central
<br /> Eugene Project in relation to the sign ordinance. James Pearson explained that the
<br /> proposed sign ordinance will prevail. However, the Renewal Agency's requirements can be
<br /> more restrictive. He said the Agency has recommended adoption of the ordinance as sub- ,~
<br /> mitted by the Planning Commission.
<br /> Councilman McDonald asked what effect the sign ordinance would have on the community's
<br /> economy so far as personal property tax is concerned, and in particular in what amount
<br /> it would affect the City's revenues. Brian Obie estimated an annual reduction of $1800
<br /> on billboards only. Hal Cross said the electrically operated signs would amount to much
<br /> more, but no firm figure was given.
<br /> Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. McNutt to table Section 2 temporarily to give an opportunity to re-
<br /> view the suggested changes. Motion carried.
<br /> Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. McNutt to adopt Section 3 - Special Signs.
<br /> .
<br /> Mrs. Niven read a paragraph suggested for addition to Section 3.33: "If limited to a "i;i'
<br /> maximum sign area of twelve (12) square feet, a directional sign, used only to identify
<br /> and locate a service entrance or service facility, is exempt'from the provisions of this ~,
<br /> ordinance, provided that such sign cannot project' any further than the allowable projection ",
<br /> for an identity sign for the sign district in which it is located."
<br /> With regard to Section 3.4 - Roof Signs - Hal Cross said the sign industry suggests a
<br /> ratio of one-half foot of sign height for each vertical foot of building height with
<br /> a maximum of 15 feet to the top of the sign.
<br /> Coun~ilman Lasse~ inquire~ about the regulations of this section in relation to fire pre- ,.
<br /> vent~on. Mrs. N~ven repl~ed that the regulation in the proposed ordinance was checked ..
<br /> against both the fire and building codes and no problems are anticipated. ~/
<br /> ~ 7/29/68 - 1
<br />
|