09/10/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I' Mr. Larsen continued that amendments to the Code were needed to clarify the in- tent, noting the split vote of the Council at the time of adoption, compromises in the final ordinance, and subsequent court cases on sign codes in other states. ~ He added that Obie Communications has been working under the Code for five years -- and feels continued use of the Code as written will put that firm out of business. He said the amendments proposed were designed to make the Code more workable. The firm has the intent of continuing to work with Building officials to resolve the problem of billboard elimination. He noted variations made on Obie's billboards which they felt should be taken into consideration and said there was no evidence to show that the intent of the Code was to eliminate them; determination on that question could be brought out in public hearing. He stated his belief in the legislative system, making reference to representation that Obie will commence litigation if amendments are not to be considered, and said 1,t was a question of whether the firm could exist under this Code. Larry Gildea, attorney, representing the Korstad group of businessmen, called attention to substantial information developed from studies across the Nation and cases filed in other areas which would have a bearing on the legal issue and should be reviewed by the Council. He deemed it prudent to hold hearings to determine whether the sign ordinance should be amended so that others adversely affected by its regulations would have an opportunity to be heard before a deci- sion is made or before litigation is started. Mayor Anderson noted it was continually implied by Obie Communications that they -- would be out of business if the proposed amendments are not made. He asked how many of Obie's signs in the City have been eliminated as a means of complying with the Code since it was adopted. York Haines of Obie Communications described the difficulty of determining what type of signs would be used for replacements and finally answered that none had actually been removed. Brian Obie,.president of the Company, said in the interest of clarification it should be noted that the Code will put Obie Communications out of business in Eugene, not out of business entirel y . Mr. Anderson continued with statistical questions - whether it was correct that only 29 of the 150 of Obie's signs, or about 23%, would actually have to be eliminated, and how many new signs had been installed since the Code was adopted. Mr. Haines answered that Obie had a total of only 126 within the City, not 150. He and Mr. Obie commented on differences in various signs, height, problems with relocation, etc., and limitations imposed by the Code. They did not have the number of new signs installed since 1968. Mayor Anderson asked why, if Obie Communications felt the ordinance needed clarifica- tion, the matter was not brought to the Council prior to this time in order to point out the problem areas rather ~han asking for amendments to specific sections. Mr. Obie noted a previous appearance before the Council on a setback question and . appearances before the Planning Commission, many discussions with the Board of Appeals, and with staff trying to achieve some relief on that specific issue. Mr. Larsen said any item to appear on the Council agenda has to come from the Manager, Planning, or a councilman. He added that in appearances before the Board of Appeals the question seemed to be a matter of interpretation of the Code; decisions were that non-conforming signs would have to be removed at the deadline so in effect could stay until tha t time. He said it was not possible to base an appeal on a decision of that type. Manager in response to Mr. Larsen's statement with regard to an item's appearing on the Council agenda said his office never refused a demand to be heard by the Council. He added that suggestions for other solutions are sometimes made, and the Council has been asked a time or two I whether it wished to consider an applicant's request, but no one has ever been refused the right to be heard by the Council if they insisted. He agreed with Mr. Obie that there have been many discussions with regard to this ordinance. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the Council adopt Alternative Comm No. 1 recommended by the staff - to allow the Sign Code to continue to operate 9/5/73 as intended at the time of its adoption and take no action on the requested Approve amendments. Councilman Williams commented that he thought the Sign Code was established through . a very thoughtful and detailed process, that it was a prudent and proper act, and that the legislative body properly reflected the wishes of the people in es- tablishing it. He thought that the legislative body was still satisfied that the Code as adopted represents the will of the people. He noted one of the concerns about constraints of government was the extent to which the will of the majority might infringe upon the will of the minority and said that the question of whether the use of this Sign Code is an improper use of police power should be decided in the courts. He saw no reason to consider any change in the ordinance. 2.82 9/10/73 - 6