|
<br />~ I
<br /> l53 e
<br /> I' i\
<br /> II
<br /> j!- :1
<br /> i Council Chamber I
<br /> !
<br /> I Eugene, Oregon !I
<br /> July 27, 1970 I:
<br /> Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His :(
<br /> Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7 :.30p. m. on July 27,1970 in the Council Chamber, with the \1
<br /> following Councilmen present: Messrs. McDonald, Teague and Purdy; Mrs. Hayward and MRs. Beal;
<br /> Messrs. Gribskov, Mohr and Williams. ,I
<br /> I[
<br /> Minutes of meetings held June 22, 29, July 6 and 13, 1970 as mailed to Council members, were
<br /> I
<br /> approved. I'
<br /> ~ I
<br /> Public Hearings il
<br /> A. Sign Ordinance Amendments - Amendment of the ordinance was delayed at the request of Obie Sign
<br /> Company because of their concern with sections dealing with billboard locations. A letter I
<br /> I II
<br /> i was read from Vernon Gleaves, attorney for Obie Sign Company, stating that Mr. Gleaves had not t
<br /> I been aware that the hearing had been set, and requesting a delay to the meeting of August 10, i e
<br /> I because he had arranged to represent another client at this time. II
<br /> 1 In response to the Mayor's request for others to be heard on this matter, a representative of I
<br /> I the League of Women Voters said she would like to speak to the issue, but would reserve comment
<br /> I I
<br /> I: until August 10, if that date was set for further hearing.
<br /> 11 Councilwoman Hayward pointed out that this matter had been delayed several times at Mr. Obie ' s I:
<br /> :1 request, and she felt the Council should set some guidelines for postponement of hearings. Mrs.
<br /> II
<br /> 'I Beal agreed with Mrs. Hayward.
<br /> I: I
<br /> II
<br /> o! II
<br /> "
<br /> ~ I Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr. Teague to postpone the hearing on Sign Code Amendments until
<br /> I,
<br /> "
<br /> I August 10, 1970. Motion carried.
<br /> "
<br /> lj
<br /> :1 B. Appeal from Sign Code (Tiffany Davis) - Tiffany Davis Company, located in the Oakway Mall, has
<br /> i! j
<br /> II requested a variance to place an S & H Green Stamp sign on the front of the building. This
<br /> "
<br /> :1 location is not permitted in the integrated shopping center sign district. I
<br /> l;
<br /> 11 Mr. James Spickerman, Assistant City Attorney, stated the city's position, and explained that
<br /> , I
<br /> " the Coun~ilcould consider a variance, as requested in this appeal, or could consider changing I
<br /> "
<br /> , II
<br /> the sign district.
<br /> Mr. Rick Cleveland, Attorney for Tiffany Davis, explained their position, and outlined hard- I
<br /> ships caused by the restrictions imposed. He suggested possible solutions to the problem. I
<br /> I
<br /> He said the Board af Appeals had been ~ovided with photographs, and that staff was to have II
<br /> furnished them to the Council for review.
<br /> City Manager commented that the staff had been unable to locate the photographs, but that the
<br /> Council had viewed the site on tour. II
<br /> "
<br /> ,: Planning ,Director ,commented that this type of sign would be permitted if the sign district was I
<br /> " outlying commercial. There had been some discussion during the period the code was drafted
<br /> I, I
<br /> '! whether this center should be outlying commercial, rather than integrated neighborhood. His I
<br /> ;t department would suggestethat the Council consider this, rather than a variance. I
<br /> "
<br /> f Councilwoman Hayward was concerned about other signs in the shopping center if the Council
<br /> changed the sign district~ Superintendent of Building explained that if the Council~cbanged
<br /> the district to highway oriented, signs would not be liwited in number, but in area. He-'sald
<br /> there is in fact an identity problem, whichccould be solved by placing the sign on the building
<br /> itself.
<br /> Dr. Purdy was concerned with the aesthetics of the sign, and felt that it might be better I .-
<br /> close to the wall, rather than in the parking area. He did not feel, however, that this II
<br /> should be done through variance procedure.
<br /> I
<br /> Mayor Anderson suggested that the Council might review this request. There have been no 'I
<br /> other appeals like this, and the issue will have to be defined clearly. II
<br /> Mrs. Hayward asked if the Council would have to make a decision now, or might delay its decision!
<br /> to the next Cou~cil meeting. Th~ historic implications of the decision were great, and a 'I
<br /> " delay might aid the Council in this decision. She did not feel the delay would cause hard- 1
<br /> I ship for the appellant. I
<br /> II
<br /> " Mr. Teague was also concerned about the importance of the Council decision, and felt a 1
<br /> ,
<br /> delay would allow time for further study. I
<br /> Mayor Anderson suggested that a member of the Sign Board of Appeals attend the next meeting. I I
<br /> I
<br /> Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. I
<br /> Teague that action on this appeal be deferred to the I
<br /> 'I I
<br /> August 10, 1970 meeting. Motion carried. II
<br /> 'I
<br /> " C. Assessment Ordinances !I
<br /> "
<br /> 'I
<br /> " There was no one present to speak either for or against any assessment ordinances. (See II
<br /> :1 ORDINANCES) II e
<br /> "
<br /> 'I
<br /> II
<br /> i ~
<br /> 7/27/70-1 :1
<br />~
<br /> --
<br />
|