08/05/1968 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3.0~ . 8/5/68 The Superintendent of Building Inspection called attention to the lack of regulation on . height in Section 3.33. Mr. Anderso~with the consent of the second, added the words "...and not more than 8 feet in height." to the amendment to Section 3.33. A vote was taken on the amendment as amended, and motion carried. A vote was taken on the motion (July 29, 1968 meeting) to adopt Section 3 as amended, and motion as amended carried. Mr. Anderson said he felt rotating signs should be permitted in highway oriented and industrial dis- tricts, but eliminated in commercial areas, and he moved, seconded by Mr. Wingard to reconsider Section 4 as adopted at the July 29, 1968 meeting. Motion carried. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Wingard that the amended Section 4.5 be amended to allow rotating it' signs in highway oriented and industria1'districts, providing they do not rotate in excess of five revolutions per minute, and to provide that reader boards shall not be allowed to rotate. Mrs. Niven called attention to the recommended addition of Section 4.8 setting regula- tions with regard to "blanketing" signs. The City Manager suggested the word "substantially" be inserted in the first sentence of Section 4.8 between the words "to" and "obstruct." . Mr. Anderson with the consent of the second included in the motion the amendment to Section 4.6 and addition of Section 4.8, including the change to make it read "...so as to substantially obstruct the . view...," as recommended by the Planning Commission and listed on the Summary of Changes to Sign Ordinance to August 5, 1968. Councilman Purdy asked for separate vote on each section, and a vote was taken on Section 4.5 as amended. Motion carried, Councilmen Lauris and Purdy voting no. A vote was taken on Section 4.6 as amended, and motion as amended carried. A vote was taken on Section 4.8 as amended, and motion as amended carried. Mr.Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Wingprd to adopt Section 4 as amended, and motion carried. . Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to adopt Section 5 - Illumination. Motion carried. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to adopt Section 7 - Construction Requirements. The City Attorney said that future modification of the Uniform Code is contradictory to Oregon Law and suggested the words "...and the additions and modifications hereinafter made..." be deleted. The Superintendent of Building Inspection said that with this dele- tion there will be future expansion of the section because future changes in the Uniform Building Code could be contradictory to this ordinance. Mr. Anderson with the consent of the second changed his motion' to delete the words as recommended. . A vote was taken to adopt the section as amended, and motion as amended carried. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to adopt Section 8 - Permits and Fees. Charles Johnston asked for deletion of the requirement inthe second paragraph of Section 8.1 for architect's or licensed engineer's seal on sign structure plans. The Superintendent of Building Inspection said this requirement was included to establish better criteria for ~ design of sign structures more in line with criteria required for building structures. He said it was his understanding the sign industry would submit a standard design with regard to pole support, angle brackets, etc., so that plans for individual sign structures could be checked against the standard design, thereby not necessitating an architect's or engineer's seal on each set of plans so long as they conform to the standard. James Pearson explained that the Planning Commission did not feel it proper to place the burden of setting standards on the Building Department and that members of the sign in- dustry had indicated they would be willing to work up tables for this purpose. Mr. Johnston said the sign industry would approve this arrangement, but the wording of the ordinance has not been changed to permit it. . Mr. Wingard moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to amend Section 8.1 by adding at the end of the second para- graph the words "...or conform to a table mutually agreed upon by the Superintendent of Building In- spection and sign industry." Motion carried. , Mr. Johnston said the industry objected to the requirement for payment of an annual fee and asked for deletion of Section 8.3 B. James Pearson explained that the Planning Commission felt there is constant inspection and enforcement, and the fee should serve as a reminder to the individual that he is using pub lic proper ty . Dick Richards objected to the exclusion in Section 8.4 from licensing requirements those . persons painting wall signs. 8/5/68 - 3 ....