My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08/31/1970 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1970
>
08/31/1970 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/24/2007 12:12:37 AM
Creation date
11/2/2006 4:05:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
8/31/1970
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> 3GJ0 e <br /> 8/31/70 ~ . <br /> ; <br /> ~ I I <br /> Mr. Leonard Frojen felt there was no question of clarity in the ordinance. He was concerned with the <br /> possibility of granting of variances for sign location and felt a great number of requests would be <br /> made for similar variances. Mrs. Niven pointed out that the provisions for appeal now in the ordinance <br /> I, are quite adequate and would give an applicant every opportunity to make a case with the appeal <br /> II board. <br /> II Mrs. Hayward agreed that the ordinance. was quite clear, but since Mr. Obie did not appear to agree, <br /> II she felt it necessary to amend the ordinance. <br /> I Mr. Mohr was afraid this would put one more restrictive standard on the appeal procedure, and that <br /> it would be easier to appeal if the ordinance was not amended. . <br /> Mrs. Mary Briscoe, League of Women Voters, said she had attended public hearings concerning the <br /> sign ordinance, and these things were discussed at that time~... It was felt with Council <br /> adoption of the sign ordinance there would be no more discussion or controversy. It was the <br /> I hope of her organization the Council would honor the sign ordinance and use the board of appeals to <br /> handle this type problem. e <br /> Mr. Mohr suggested that the appeal section of the ordinance should be amended to take care of <br /> !. existing conditions. The standards suggested by Mr. Gilieaves proposal could be incorporated in <br /> I appeal standards and would apply to individual cases. Mr. Mohr suggested adoption of a standard <br /> I relating to criticism or public discomfiture, or nuisance. <br /> Mrs. Hayward wondered whether just an adjoining property owner could file a complaint, or a citizen <br /> could do so. She felt this suggestion should be carefully studied. Mrs. Beal felt any amendment I <br /> j to the sign ordinance should be referred to the Council by the Planning Commission.. They should <br /> study it first. <br /> I Manager agreed that any proposed amendments to the appeal procedure should be referred to the <br /> Planning Commission. <br /> There was discussion on the exact meaning of the motion and whether it concerned just the future, <br /> or also pertained to signs now located. <br /> I City Attorney said there was no doubt the ordinance menat what it said, but Mr. Obie had brought <br /> to the attorney's attention that he felt the ordinance was ambiguous. This amendment has a little <br /> better language than before. <br /> I <br /> Ii Dr. Purdy asked the City Attorney if it was his opinion that the wording now in the ordinance was <br /> i' legal and that the Court would require that Mr. Obie's signs be removed. The City Attorney said if <br /> !I the entire ordinance was read there was no question billboards were required to comply with the <br /> II 15' setback; and it was his opinion the court would so interpret it. The object of the proposed <br /> II amendment is to remove ambiguity. <br /> I <br /> I <br /> ! Mr. Mohr was concerned about the affect of the amendment on billboards both now and in the <br /> I. future, and said he would withhold unanimous consent on the council bill until some provision was <br /> jl made for amendment to provisions of appeal. <br /> Ii I <br /> II Mrs. Niven pointed out that the amortization period would not expire for three years, and at that <br /> I' time, if it appeared necessary, provisillons for appeal could be amended. <br /> II Vote taken on motion. Motion carried. Dr. Purdy, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Teague voted no. <br /> I , <br /> 3. Storm Sewer Financing, Lutheran Laymen's League - Mr. Richard Unruh outlined problems <br /> faced with FHA financing for a low rent project proposed by the Lutheran Laymen's League. <br /> 11 They are requesting city assistance with 'financing a drainage ditch. An agreement has <br /> to be reached with the City prior to execution of a contract. Therefore, they are -- <br /> II requesting agreement before finding out the actual cost of the sewer project. They <br /> II are also requesting engineering be done by the City for extension of Hawthorne Avenue, <br /> and that this be part of the contract~ <br /> I <br /> Mrs. Niven explained that the amount requested was approximately $7,000. The .Council <br /> has set a policy to aid public housing by private developers by helping, if necessary, <br /> I with public improvements. <br /> I <br /> Councilwoman Hayward said she was totally in sympathy, but asked for clarification <br /> of the.policy. Mrs. Niven clarified that the housing policy for the city sets forth <br /> a policy to encourage private developers, and if necessary, participate in public <br /> improvement costs. <br /> I The City Manager explained this request and that any decision would probably be precedent setting. <br /> He said the/amount requested had not been budgeted and funds would have to be used which had I <br /> ; not been specifically allocated for this purpose. <br /> I <br /> In answer to Councilman Williams, the City Manager sa~d the city had not participated in this <br /> particular type project previously, but had provaded a fixed amount to a particular subdivision. <br /> Mrs. Niven agreed there was a problem of precedent, and suggested the Council set a policy with <br /> an arbitrary limit, possibly related to an amount per unit, rather than a flat amount. She <br /> !\ e <br /> 8/31/70 - 11 <br /> ~:: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.