|
<br /> ~
<br /> 2- 7b
<br /> e
<br /> ?'
<br /> ~UIO/70
<br /> I
<br /> I B. Sign OrdirtartceAmendments (continued from meeting of July 27, 1970)
<br /> Building Superintendent explained that only one item of several amendments
<br /> had beEm contested, which was an amendment to the prealnble to the billboard
<br /> section.
<br /> I Dr. Purdy recalled that the Council had made a tour before conducting sign
<br /> ordinance hearings and it was his recollection that at that time the
<br /> proposed code allowed billboards closer to the property line. Building
<br /> Superintendent explained that the signs Dr. furdy referred to were business identity
<br /> signs and they were allowed to extend to the property line;
<br /> Mrs. Phyllis Loobey spoke for the League of Women Voters to support the
<br /> amendment which would clarify the intent of the original wording under Section 6.
<br /> Mr. Vernon Gleaves_, attorney for Obie Sign Company, said the proposed change
<br /> appeared to be minor. However, the outdoor sign industry had been of the opinion
<br /> e that billboards, under the ordinance, would be required to comply with setback
<br /> provisions of the zoning ordinance, and had proceeded on that assumptillon. He
<br /> believed that the present interpretation of the ordinance was in conflict with the
<br /> original interpretation of the building department. Mr. Gleaves had obtained
<br /> transcripts of all council meetings held in connection with the sign ordinance, and
<br /> very early in the meetings a change had been 'made in setback requirements to be reason-
<br /> able and consistent with present practices. Since billboards are for advertising
<br /> I pupposes, they should be considered the same as commercial buildings, which are
<br /> allowed to be placed on the prop~rty line. If this setback ruling remains, it will
<br /> destroy the billboard,indmstry. Mr. Gleaves explained conflicts in rulings when
<br /> new billboard placements were made. He outlined the number of sign placements the
<br /> Obie Company would lose if this amendment were adopted and urged the Council not to
<br /> change the present wording of the code, saying it would constitute a major change
<br /> in the ordinance itself.
<br /> Allen Reynolds, who had an advertising agency, said he believed ,the interpretation
<br /> II of the building department and Planning Commission was that billboards would
<br /> follow the formal building setback line. He felt the 15' designation was
<br /> arbitrary, and said many signs could not be used in this area if this setback was
<br /> enforced. He felt this was discrimination against the billboard industry.
<br /> Mr. Ken Freeman, independent advertising counselor, felt this was an attack on the
<br /> advertising industry, and he felt this would be an inequitable change.
<br /> i
<br /> Mr. John Timmons" Lincoln National Life, said billboard advertising was used I
<br /> extensively by his industry, and this restriction would work a distinct hardship I
<br /> on them. I
<br /> Professor W. L. Winter, University School of Journalism, said he had a great fear II
<br /> Ii
<br /> of the tyranny of the majority, and Obie advertising served local businesses and I'
<br /> was a responsible, tax-paying industry. I
<br /> I Brian Obie said when the ordinance was originally adopted he had felt he could save
<br /> 2/3 of the signs in the community, but if this amendment is endorsed by the Council, !
<br /> only 1/3 will in fact be saved. This would crea~e a financial burden he would be unable i
<br /> I
<br /> to bear. He said he was only asking to be allowed to put his signs out as far as I
<br /> I
<br /> the building, and to remain a good ci ti zen of the community. II'
<br /> Mr. Bill Reynolds, independeri~businessman, felt passage of this amendment would I
<br /> I
<br /> - cripple a small business, and he could see no reason billboards could not be set I
<br /> I back the same distance as buildings. I
<br /> I Mr. Dennis Miller, a new resident of Eugene, said billboard space is in great Ii
<br /> I
<br /> I demand"and he felt other businesses would suffer if this amendment was adopted.
<br /> II In answer to Councilman Mohr, Mr. Gleaves ffiid there may very well have been taking
<br /> II without due process in the original passage of the ordinance, but the ordinance did
<br /> Ii have a phase-out period. The actual taking will not occur until the five-year
<br /> expiration peribd,.has -elapsed. <Thj,.f?~'~l!le.ridm~iitismore ~rbi trary, since it does
<br /> Ii allow identification signs in this 15' area. .>-
<br /> Ii In answer to Mrs. Hayward, City Manager said the installation of a sign within the
<br /> I 15' setback had been the result of a misunderstanding by an employe responsible
<br /> I for checking locations, and it was corrected after it was discovered.
<br /> I
<br /> I
<br /> i
<br /> I [ There was further discussion about the number of sign locations which might be lost
<br /> I by Obie Sign Company through this amendment.
<br /> I
<br /> !
<br /> I Mr. Teague was concerned with the hardship on Mr. Obie and the resultant hardship on
<br /> I
<br /> I many merchants. He felt when the code had been drawn the Council was aware there
<br /> I would be hardships, but he wondered why a 15' distance had been chosen rather than
<br /> ,
<br /> I la' or 5'. City Manager explained that there had been a great deal of discussion
<br /> I concerning hardships, ,and this was the reason for the amortization period.
<br /> I
<br /> ,
<br /> e II Mr. Morven Thomas, Planning Commission, explained that some restriction on signing
<br /> II was necessary, and the Planning Commission had taken things such as speed of
<br /> "
<br /> !I
<br /> I, 8/10/70 - 2
<br /> I:
<br /> "
<br /> .....IIIIl
<br />
|