08/05/1968 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r: 308 . 8/5/68 j,t /: ;i Mr. Emmons renewed the Outdoor Advertising Association's request for more reasonable fees, 11 particularly on standardized structures. . Ii I " Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to delete the words "...other than signs painted on the wall I !: of a building or structure or billboard..." from the first paragraph of Section 8.4. Motion carried. " ! A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Section 8 as amended. Motion as amended carried. " Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mrs. Lauris to adopt Section 9 - Inspection and Safety. Mayor Cone suggested that Section 9.3 - Removal of Signs - designate that the City should not pay for removal of any signs which.are not removed by the owner. Mrs. Niven said the City Attorney advised the Commission that the property owner has no obligation since he contracted for the sign 'only, and the provisions of this paragraph were.based on the assumption that contact would not be possible with whoever installed the signs which needed to be removed. A vote was taken on the motion as stated, and motion carried. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to adopt Section 10 - Nonconforming Signs. .. Mrs. Niven reviewed changes to this section recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mrs. Lauris to amend Section 10 to include revisions to Section 10.12 , and 10.13, changing to a standard period of five years for nonconforming signs to meet requirements of .. , the ordinance, and substituting for Section 10.3 the rewritten Section 10.3 as shown in the Summary of " Changes to Sign Ordinance to August 5, 1968, and that each secd on be voted on separately. . i' The City Attorney strongly recommended uniformity for whatever period of time is established for bringing nonconforming uses to requirements and resulting period of amortization. He i: said if any classification is treated differently there must be a basis for the differentiation. I, Ed Fadeley, representing the Motel Owners Association, suggested a~ amendment which would provide more than a five-year amortization period for signs which are constructed as part of a building. He said depreciation schedules for some of these s~gns are set up for tax purposes in line with the building to which they are attached and that a ten-year amortiza- : tion .period would create less economic hardship. ~s.. Niven urged the ~ouncil to retain the five-year requirement. She said about 95% of I the signs in Eugene are leased and the average value of the signs is not enough to create real har,dship. She said if serious problems do arise, they wo~ld be recognized and adjust- ments could be made on the depreciation factor. Mr. Pearson said he felt very few signs would be amortized on the basis of a building structure, and that it should be recognized the signs can be remodeled to conform to the provisions of the ordinance. Douglas McKay objected to the takedown time allowed under the ordinance. He said signs in the Oakway Mall were installed un~er an ordinance which they.thought would allow the signs to remain for the length of the lease, and the leases run for 15 years. He said there is considerable more value involved than indicated by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Pauline Tif~any suggested adding a paragraph to Section 10 to provide, she said, an . equitable solution to economic hardship presented by the ordinance. The suggested addi- tion was: "Compensation shall be paid by ;'he City to owners of ,any sign required to be removed before it has been completely depreciated, compensation to be based on number of years remaining as shown by depreciation schedule submitted to the Internal Revenue Service." '. Mr. Masengil of Aerolite Signs expressed concern that money invested in rotating signs could not be regained from lessees of signs if they are forced to stop the rotation. '" Mrs. Niven called attention to the provisions of Section 4.8 and said it was not the in- tent of the Planning .Commission that "blanketing" signs be removed within six months. She also referr~d to Section 12.21 with regard to objections of the Motel Owners- and said the wording of the last sentence in that section could be changed to read "...related to the size, location, or cost of a new sign.... " Then if a sign situation is completely different from all other sign situations, the Board of Appeals could grant relief. Gordon Cottrell said the Used Car Dealers still feel their situation is different from that of the New Car Dealers with regard to the three-year amortization period for string lights. He said replacement illumination fO,r the string lights would require a large capital investment and create a real hardship on some of the used car dealers. He said the lights do not serve the purpose of a sign as such and asked for at least a five-year t takedown schedule. Discussion followed on results if lights were turned off after certain hours, and possible ,t reduction in intensity of lighting. The City Attorney commented that other sections of ./ the ordinance control lighting for security purposes and nuisance illumination for resi- dential areas surrounding shopping centers. Mr. Cottrell reiterated the position that there is considerable capital investment, and replacement within three years could in some cases put a used car dealer out of business. Fred Braatz said he agreed with the addition suggested by Mrs. Tiffany with regard to re- payment for investment in signs. ~. ~ 8/5/68 - 4