07/22/1968 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~300 . 7/22/68 r: It Ii Charles Johnston. said the sign ~ndustryobjects. to the size restriction of 4.0 .square f.eet ,and Ii p the 40-foot. setback .requirement. He also objected to the height limit. which the industry-suggested -. " should be 30 feet. I " Architect Leonard Frojen showed slides illustrating readability of flat wall signs compared to I: projecting signs and recommended setbacks be required. in relation to speed zones which he felt should I. be 15 feet in outlying commercial districts and 30 feet in highway oriented districts. He suggested that Coburg Road be considered outlying commercial north of 1-105. He also suggested a lesser square- foot area of signs per linear foot of frontage than that permitted in the o~dinance. . Mr. Frojen said he felt the sign density permitted in the highway oriented areas is too great. He suggested that the question previously raised on eye~level signs could be resolved by adding to the note on Diagram A I, ".. . and less t!1an five square feet per occupancy."! il Ray Wolfe objected to the possibility of allowing signs higher' than .20 feet and said if allowed they would be detrimental to r~sidential areas abutting. commercial districts. Hal Cross and Mr. Johnston reiterated their argument that size. and readability are most .important in co~sidering regulations. They displayed lettering on the 4'2" allowable .area and a comparable area .. for a vertical sign and argued that the English language is not easily read vertically. Neither did i. they feel the size allowed proper design. The City Manager displayed a vertical sign of a size which would be allowed on a building with frontage comparable to John Warren Hardware occupancy. Betty Niven remarked that the results of a questionnaire printed in the Register-Guard revealed a majority prefer the vertical and wall signs now in existence. Mayor Cone said flat. wall signs would be preferred if all signs were so constructed, but if projection is allowed a 4'2" area is not enough for proper design. -' - . !' Architect Dan Herbert said larger projections are not needed for larger signs, that the angle of . " projection will determine diemsnion. He said it is not a matter of individual signs but of clusters . ~~,.; of signs and "blanketing." Mrs. Niven remarked that the ordinance provides for larger signs on build- ings set back from the property line. i, " . Mrs. Fr~nk D~derson, 939 East 21st Avenue, mentioned signs in Scandinavia. She said there are no projecting signs, the signs are small and easy to read, and initials and symbols are used a great deal to identify shops. I Mrs. Darrell Smith, 3650 Knob Hill Lane, supported the regulations governing signs in outlying .: commercial districts as written and said the use of signs as identification is essential. She pre- !i sented proposed amendments to Section 10 - Nonconforming Signs - which would require phasing out non- conforming signs in three years, or five years from date of installation, with a. ten-year period al- lowed for those signs not falling within the 10% leeway for allowable dimensions. . Jim Wood, Shell Oil Company, referred to Section 2.3l-B which requires that lights on signs ad- jacent to residential property be turned off between 10:00 p.m.and 6:00 a.m. He suggested the ordi- ; nance may be regulating hours of operation by regulating the lighting. The Superintendent df Build ing In~pection commented that a survey by his department revealed that all of the oil company hallmark signs can be accommodated in a 40-square-foot area. Section 2.4 - Highway Oriented Signs - was' introduced. Charles Johnston said the sign inqustry feels the setback is too restrictive, that signs should be allowed to the property line with the " understanding merchants will move them if and when the streets are widened. He said an area of 100 1: square feet is not enough for highway oriented signs, and that 90% of present signs of this type will . have to be redone under the ordinance. He suggested five square feet for every linear foot of frontage~ I' Charles ~otterf, Eugene Radiator Service, objected to the proposed regulations and said he will ; lose three signs under the ordinance. Joe Richards presented amendments to various sections of the ordinance proposed by the New Car ~ Dealers Association: He said the proposed regulations present problems peculiar to automobile oriented businesses and that signs are needed to indicate both new and used car locations as well as service installations. Mr. Richards said bids received indicated a cost ranging from $9,000.00 to $15,000.00 to replace any string lights (Section 5) with comparable illumination permitted by the regulations. He said leases on such lights run from two to four years and asked that the six-month period to remove nonconforming lights be extended to three years to minimize hardship on the car dealers. Bud Bauer, Independent Used Car Dealers, called attention to the investment in string lights and ob- jected to the amortization period. Mr. Richards presented bids received for installation of substitute. illumination, and it was understood the material would be presented to the Planning Commission when the proposed amendments from the New Car Dealers are considered. Mr.Frojen commented on the slide illustrations shown by Mr. Johnston saying the signs therein . should be shown in proper perspective - highway oriented signs from the road, and downtown signs from the sidewalk. He said the Oakway Mall sign is a good example of a wall sign that conforms to the ordi nance. A spokesman for the Electrical Advertising Institute also took exception to the angle from which the sign illustrations were shown. - Ed Fadeley, representing the Lane County Motel Association, said the ordinance should permit larger main identification signs for motels since their business is dependent upon informing traveling customers what is available. He said :' the Association supports the aesthetic value to be gained by the proposed regulations, but that it should be recognized aesthetics are not necessarily based on size; Douglas McKay referred to Section 2.42 under which each occupancy is allowed an identification sign and called attention to the one Oakway Mall sign which was installed instead of 22 individual signs for the shopping area. He suggested that shopping areas be ,allowed larger and higher signs to . prevent the use of many small signs. ~/ l'