06/23/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ing to accept the sign contractors' request to change the amendment to prevent owners from installing their own signs, thereby requiring the services of a sign contractor, because it would not be in line with other code provisions governing e plumbers, electrical workers, etc. In re~nse to Councilwoman Beal's question whether the amendment would prevent small businessmen or do-it-yourself type shops from putting up their own signs, Assistant Manager said the sign contractors wanted exclusive rights in that regard but staff disagreed and the code amendment as presented has no effect on who installs a sign so long as it meets code requirements. Councilman Williams questioned the provision under Section 3 (Note 14) requiring journeymen sign electrician's license and employment by a licensed electrical contractor for any person performing electrical work on electrical signs. Nick Nolte, superintendent of building inspection, explained that that wording was taken from State law. That type of work must be done by a licensed electrician, not by a sign contractor unless he is also a licensed electrician. However, he said, it would not preclude work by any electrical contractor, still in answer to Councilman Williams. One would not have to be employed by a sign contractor, work could be performed by an electrician working for an owner. COmID Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Ur. Hamel to bring the revised ordinance 6/18/75 back for second reading at the June 23 Council meeting. Motion Pub Hrng carried unanimously. Previously considered by the Council at its May 27, 1975 meeting and held for a report from public works department and revision of language in the ordinance. Assistant Manager explained that a revised version attempts to separate general and limited types of licenses. He noted staff had met with sign contractors (see committee minutes above). e Public hearing was opened. Jim Broughton, 38 Highway 99N, representing Lane County Commercial Sign Association, said they basically were pleading '~o contest." They agreed with the provisions of the ordinance except they felt there was no way of defining a contractor. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Council Bill No. 843 - Amending Sections 3.005 and 3.010 of City Code re: Sign Contractors Licenses, read the first time on May 27, 1975 and held for public works department report, was read the second time as re- vised by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17394. 2. Fire Code, Sprinklering High-rise Buildings ~ . Code Amendment, Sprinklering High-rise Buildings - Copies of the proposed amendment were previously distributed to Council members. It would require approved auto- matic fire extinguishing systems in every structure of five or more stories or higher than 45 feet of Group H occupancy (residential type structures). - Councilman Williams expressed concern about the five-year deadline to meet the re- quirement, especially as it concerned buildings such as Sacred Heart Hospital and the Eugene Medical Center. Wendell Wick, fire marshal, explained that Sacred Heart Hospital was sprinklered throughout, all institutions and nursing home type occu- pancies now had such systems. The difference between Group H occupancy and a 1.'?>3 6/23/75 - 3