|
<br />""'l
<br />
<br />
<br />. (., 9(P
<br />
<br />
<br />9/l3/7l
<br />
<br />ij ~
<br />I II II
<br />... ii part of the building. il
<br />
<br />'i ;1
<br />I' In answer to Councilman Williams, Building Superintendent sai,d that, under the :~
<br />!! ordinance, signs painted on the building are still considered signs, and are :i
<br />!i included in the number and area of those allowable. There is definite criteria
<br />:: in the sign ordinance, which was considered by the Board of Appeals.
<br />
<br />Mr. Hershner felt if footage between signs was counted, this proposal would be ::
<br />well over the allowable area. "
<br />
<br />Mayor Anderson suggested that the Council review the sign ordinance, perhaps
<br />II in a session wi th the Building Inspector, since the amortization period for
<br />:: removal of signs would be starting soon. At that time, there would undoubtedly
<br />:1 be many appeals. He felt this was a crucial point in Council deliberations on
<br />~: the sign ordinance. .
<br />'I
<br />~ i' Mrs. Beal felt the proposed sign was good looking and would be an asset to the
<br />. ;: building.
<br />" '
<br />
<br />ii Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Gribskov that the appeal be denied.
<br />:1
<br />II II
<br />;i Mr. Williams said he did not believe that three signs, within the area as '
<br />d interpreted, were within the intent of the ordinance. He felt this would be
<br />I :1 a precedent-making decision, and would be tantamount to saying any amount of
<br />o 11 signs would be appropriate, as long as they were wi thin the 300 square feet allowed.
<br />
<br />"
<br />il Vote taken on motion as stated. Mr. Mohr and Mrs. Bea1 were opposed. Motion
<br />I; carried. Approve
<br />"
<br />I
<br />ii'
<br />il Continuation of discussion at meeting of 9/13/71 - Otto Poticha, 1820 Kona Street, "
<br />Ii reiterated comments made at the committee of the whole meeting. He suggested that
<br />!! there were some problems with the sign ordinance, and he volunteered his help to 'I
<br />il rewri te the ordinance so that it would be understandable'. He felt the ordinance, as
<br />I written, was clearly a detriment to sign painters.
<br />;1
<br />:: Councilman Mohr was int'erested how this sign would differ from those in windows of
<br />'i grocery stores advertising wares. Ci ty Manager explained that the difference was b:etween
<br />If a permanent sign and a temporary advertising sign and an identification sign for a business. :'
<br />:1 .
<br />" Mr. Poticha explained that the difference was that the grocery advertising signs were
<br />II behind the glass. There is nothing in the ordinance' about inside signs. .
<br />I
<br />
<br />Mr. Mcdonald felt the sign would add to the looks of the downtown, and pointed out
<br />. I,
<br />that Urban Renewal appro'ved of the sign. Mr. Mohr said he was trying to find out if it :
<br />conformed to the language of the ordinance. He felt the ordinance limited the store
<br />to two signs.
<br />
<br />I Mr. Williams suggested that, if the Council approved this sign, the number of signs on
<br />. a building would no longer be a criteria which would be considered in granting sign permits.
<br />
<br />Mrs. CamPl?<:ll said she would vote against the appeal because she was afraid of what would
<br />I ~aPJ:Oienin. th~ fut,ure!The :next person to come along might not be an architect.
<br />
<br />Manager asked Council to consider that, to have an enforceable ordinance, it had to have
<br />"boxes" to put things in, otherwise, every individual proposal or request would
<br />~ become eligible for a special permit, consideration, or appeal, and while this is unfor-
<br />. tunate, it is a practical necessity. Mr. Poticha has not said this would create a
<br />hardship for his client, or that he could not design a sign that would fit in the
<br />ordinance. If the Council accepts his reasoning , a good portion of future time could
<br />be spent with appeals to the ordinance.
<br />
<br />Mr. Mohr agreed with Mr. McDonald's analysis, and said changes have to go through the
<br />': legislative process, and such legislation must be tested through tlhe ranks. At times
<br />i: codes must be changed to cover exceptional cases.
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />I, City Manager said the Board of Appeals has authority to grant variances spelled out in
<br />I, the zoning ordinance and that there is a difference between hardship and desire. He
<br />:, again pointed out that there was no hardship demonstrated in this case.
<br />,
<br />, '
<br />11 . ....-~------~-'~-~---:-
<br />, 9 R-..:. J:.iq}:;p!. _!?j"~el}sf: Rej1,g,~:~t" approved by Police Department
<br />/8/71 1 ~ B1C!,ck AiJ.<lus, JJ.?l Frank1inl!...o,~levclrd ,- (;hange of name (PB)
<br />I 2. ::,Package ~ Store (b) - Bi Mart Cempany., '1680 W?sV 18th' (New)
<br />3." on , ~ _~Bi~Mart Company, 2030 River Road -' New,.
<br />, 4; 'RMBC - ;Cracker Barrel Tavern,: 21:1 Washington (Change in ..o.wnershipl ' ~' - "
<br />5. RB - 'Bava'rial?, 444 'Thiid~Avei1Ue,-d(Change;~in:-:D'r/.nershijf)_:-appreve .',
<br />, " '- I'
<br />I' '!
<br />Ii E. Sewer Planning, Lane County - Mayor Anderson commented on a letter received from iI
<br />;i 9/8/71 Mr. Jess Hill, Lane County Commissioner, regarding an area sewer plan. He has contacted~;
<br />Iii Mr. Hill and asked Mr. Hershner to Ireet with the Mayor and Commissioners in an
<br />a :, informal session next ,week to get further clarification and more information, :
<br />. t' which will then be discussed with the Council. file I
<br />
<br />9/13/71 - 10
<br />...
<br />
|