|
<br /> I -,-
<br /> I
<br /> -- ~ -':' -- ~ _n . ---- --'~' -- ------.
<br /> - ~-. ---"-- - -_. ----- ,--
<br /> F.' EWEB Land Trans action Requests
<br /> A. Transfer to Lane County .02 acre at Belt Line and West 11th.
<br /> ,
<br /> ~ B. Quitclaim a utility easement on Lot 9, Block 3, Kelsay's Addition, between
<br /> .., 15th and 16th, Mill and Ferry, to relocate the easement along the south lot line.:
<br /> " -
<br /> jC. Quitclaim an EWEB easement on a lot in Top Deck Subdivision in Santa Clara Comm .
<br /> l D. Granting a sanitary sewer easement to the City on property along the east side 7'/19/72
<br /> of the Westmoreland substation. Approve
<br /> G. Improvement Petitions
<br /> A. Paving, sanitary and storm sewer on Ridgeway Drive from Goodpasture Island Road
<br /> 1000 feet north in Knutson Bros. planned unit development - 100%
<br /> B. Paving, sanitary and storm sewer wi thin First Addition to Mark "J" Park, and
<br /> paving Buck Street from Marl< "J" Park to north boundary of Last Addition to
<br /> Acorn Park - 85% . -- ~.--------~-----.~
<br /> C. Paving, sanitary and storm sewer within 6th Addition to Oak Hills - 87%
<br /> D. Paving, curb and gutter east half of Best Lane and north half of Willakenzie
<br /> Road adjacent to Tax Lot 1100; and storm sewer to serve Tax Lot 1100 - 100% Comm
<br /> It was understood the EWEB transactions and the improvement petitions would be 7/19/72
<br /> : placed on the consent calendar for approval. l.ipprove
<br /> H. Council Minutes as circulated-May.-31',June12 andIS, 1972 Approve
<br /> I. Eugene Sign Code - The Sign Code provides a year's advance notification to owners of
<br /> non-conforming signs which will have to be removed. The deadline for removal is
<br /> September 1, 1973, and it is anticipated notices of non-conformance will be sent be- .
<br /> ginning in September 1972 to give some understanding of corrective action necessary.
<br /> Superintendent of Building Inspection reviewed the Sign Code, adopted in 1968, and I
<br /> described it as a restrictive ordinance. Certain types of signs - lighting, flashing"
<br /> flags - were required to comply within six months of the Code's adoption. Those
<br /> types of signs are now in compliance. The very definitive regulations of the Code
<br /> resulted in effective enforcement, and that enforcement, with resulting appeals and
<br /> amendments, added more strength to the Code.
<br /> At the present time, a survey is in progress on non-conforming signs to which the
<br /> September 1973 deadline applies. It is expected a number of appeals will be sub-
<br /> mi tted at the expiration date under the standard appeal procedure and on the basis
<br /> of .hardship. Another provision for appeal is submission of proof that a sign should
<br /> be. amortized over a longer period of time because of the cost of improvement on a
<br /> property. Criteria will have to be established for this. It is anticipated, too,
<br /> ,the billboard section will generate a major challenge by the billboard industry with
<br /> respect to non-conforming signs.
<br /> I I
<br /> Building Superintendent said, in answer to questions from Mr. Hoffman and Mrs. Niven, I
<br /> that the sign industry had taken the percentage of non-conformity into account and ;
<br /> ; that there has been no tabulation of those non-conforming signs which have been re- ,
<br /> placed by new signs. --
<br /> In answer to Councilman Mohr, Building Superi12tendent reviewed the appeal procedure ,,,. 0:
<br /> to the Sign Board and to the Council, as set out in the Sign Code. Answering i
<br /> Mrs. Campbell, he said support of the Code's requirements and the Sign Board's de-
<br /> cisions would be one way of preventing continuous appeals to the Council.
<br /> ,Mr. Cross wondered what steps will be taken to prevent sign owners' wai ting until
<br /> the deadline to make an appeal, since there will be no violation until that time.
<br /> Building Superintendent suggested setting a time after notice of non-conformance
<br /> within which appeals must be made to get them started prior to the deadline and I
<br /> :spread over a longer period of time. :1
<br /> I
<br /> iA1an Maxwell asked if there had been any discussion wi th the County wi th regard to .,
<br /> sign regulations within its jurisdiction. Mayo,r Anderson said an effort had been
<br /> made in this direction but nothing definite accomplished.
<br /> ,
<br /> I
<br /> 'Mrs. Campbell asked about removal of campaign signs. Building Superintendent re-
<br /> 'plied that the city removes them when they are located on public property. Other
<br /> than contact made wi th candidates, there is no sure method of gaining removal from
<br /> pri vate property.
<br /> Builcfing Superintendent ci. ted - majo.r types of non-conforming signs which will come .
<br /> under the deadline enforcement. They are identity signs (premise of the sign
<br /> orC1i-nance is that they identify, not advertise), highway oriented signs, and those
<br /> in the downtown area.
<br /> , ,
<br /> d~'\ 7(24/72 - 7
<br /> . '..
<br />
|