|
<br /> ~
<br /> e 3o~
<br /> 8/31/70
<br /> 'I II
<br /> I,
<br /> I 11 I
<br /> Committee meeting held August 26, 1970: II
<br /> 11 Ii
<br /> I, .-. I'
<br /> I Present: Mayor Anderson; Councilmen Hayward. Beal~ Teague, Gribskov and Mohr; ;1
<br /> I Ii
<br /> I Planning Commission members S"ta;ffor9-, H3J.l1lIri:.,., li],ven and .Pears0n;_ :'
<br /> II
<br /> , City Manager and staff; and others. , ,I
<br /> I
<br /> 'I I
<br /> I,
<br /> " l. Items from Mayor and Council
<br /> 'I ,
<br /> II a. Scheduling Hearing on Motor Vehicle Pollution and Noise Pollution - Mrs. Beal
<br /> requested a hearing date be set for the ordinance drafted by the City
<br /> I Attorney's office on pollution caused by motor vehicle emissions. The City
<br /> I Manager said this will probably be scheduled for the next committee meeting.
<br /> In reply to Mrs. Beal's question whether daytime hours might be included
<br /> in the ordinance on noise restrictions, the City Attorney said that this
<br /> could probably be done, and invited Mrs. Beal to discuss the matter further
<br /> with him, previous to drafting amendments.
<br /> e In answer to Mrs. Beal, the City Manager said that this ordinance would not be ready for the next
<br /> Committee meeting, as the staff is working on the enforcement procedures. It will come before the
<br /> Council as soon as possible.
<br /> Mrs. Beal suggested that the Lane Air Pollution Authority also review the draft.
<br /> I A short break was taken.
<br /> I Mr. Gribskov left the meeting.
<br /> Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr. Teague to place Item la of the Committee report on file. Motion
<br /> carried.
<br /> 2. Sign Code Amendment, Billboards - At its last regular meeting, the City Council invited
<br /> the Planning Commission to attend a joint meeting for discussion of the intent of
<br /> the Sign Code, with reference to billboard setback.
<br /> Building Superintendent explained the amendment and that there had been no
<br /> question in his mind as to the intent of the ordinance, but the rewording
<br /> was felt to be housekeeping for clarification. It had always been the intent
<br /> to reserve fifteen feet for a business identity sign, and no other signs would
<br /> be permitted within this area.
<br /> , . . I .
<br /> Mr. Vernon Gleaves, attorney for Obie Sign Company, reviewed information
<br /> previously covered at the Council meeting. He said the Obie Company had surveyed
<br /> their signs, and as the ordinance would be written if amended, they would lose
<br /> two thirds of the signs they now have located in the City. There are now 62 signs
<br /> in the 15 feet setback area. Eighteen would have to be removed; 44 might be
<br /> adjusted. It had been the understanding of the Obie Company that the ordinance ,
<br /> as written, pertained only to the building setbaqk, as far as the billboards were
<br /> I concerned. Mr. Obie' s contention is that the fifteen fo-at. setback did not apply
<br /> to billboards, and>this was confir.med by comments from Dr. Purdy at the Council
<br /> meeting of August 10. He said what the Council should consider was not what the
<br /> Planning Commission intent had been, but what the Council intent had been when "
<br /> I,
<br /> they adopted the ordinance. He felt the Building Department had construed the ,
<br /> setback in the same way the Obie people had when the first application for
<br /> sign location had been submitted. The location had been viewed and approved I
<br /> with a five feet setback. It was not until July of 1969 that the Buildmng Dept. ~
<br /> e began rejecting sign permit requests with less that a fifteen root'setback. They "
<br /> ,
<br /> felt the fifteen foot requirement was completely unrealistic. Mr. Gleaves sug-
<br /> gested that the amendment to Section 6 of the Sign Code be adopted with the addition
<br /> of the statement: "Notwithstanding setback requirem~nts contained in Section 2.43
<br /> hereof, setback requirements for billboards shall be. covered by Section (a) of
<br /> this Section 6.1"
<br /> I
<br /> "
<br /> Mrs. Hayward said that she- did not feel the intent of the Council was reflected in
<br /> remarks made by Dr. Purdy, and that it was her recollection that billboards were
<br /> to be included in the group that were not to be allowed in the fifteen foot. setback.
<br /> Mr. David Hoffman, Planning Commission member, entered the meeting.
<br /> Mrs. Betty Niven suggested that, rather than relying on memory, the Council "
<br /> "
<br /> sho:uld consider Section 2.1.1 at the beginning of the ordinance, which states
<br /> the primary purpose of signs to be the identification of business premises. The
<br /> I purpose of the fifteen ,foot. setback was to make certain every business would have
<br /> an identity sign which would be visible to persons traveling in cars in the high-
<br /> t way oriented district. Billboards should be placed in the same category as all
<br /> I other signs except identity signs.
<br /> I
<br /> I Mr~.Hoffman said as the ordinance was originally drafted, billboards were not
<br /> II allowed in any manner or form. A compromise was reached to allow billboards
<br /> 'I to be set behind the 15' area reserved for identity signs, since the Commission
<br /> I' If what the Commission was
<br /> ,I was concerned with the impact on Obie Advertising.
<br /> e )1 adopting was completely different from what Mr. OBie thought was being adopted,
<br /> ,
<br /> II "'"
<br /> ,.
<br /> It 8/31/70 - 8
<br /> I'
<br /> I ~
<br /> ~
<br />
|