Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/1968 Meeting -.'- 27'S . 7/15/68 r: " I' ,; Eugene, Oregon I: Council Chamber I' , II July 15, 1968 . " !' Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the meeting 1. held July 8, 1968 - was called to order at 7:30 p.m~ on July 15, 1968 in the Council Chamber by His Honor Mayor Edwin E. Cone with the following councilmen present: Mr. Anderron, Mrs. Lauris, Messrs. Purdy, McNutt, and Lassen, Mrs.Hayward, and Messrs. McDonald and Wingard. I: , I, Council Bill No. 8571 - Regulating signs in the city of Eugene; submitted and read in full. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mrs. Lauris to adopt the proposed sign ordin~nce as submitted by the Planning Commission and approved at its meeting of June 25, 1968, and that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council. Betty Niven, Planning Commission chairman, explained the background and general philosophy of the proposed sign ordinance; She said the ordinance was preparedwith,t~e-objectof,im- proving visibility of identification signs'by removing as many other distracting signs as possible without being discriminatory, and to bring an element of order to those areas .., where signs are used. Discussion started on Section 2.C. - ,Sign Standards by Geographical Area. A sign district map was shown which Mrs. Niven explained was prepared to reflect actual sign use and compe- tition rather than by orienting signs to zoning districts. :' Roger Emmons, executive secretary of the Council of Outdoor Advertising, said their comments 4It I, . wou~d be withheld until' Section 6 - Billboard Signs and Other Off-Premise Si~ns - is under .. discussion. ~/' Introduction to Section 2.1 - Pedestrian-Auto District - was read. Mrs. Niven explained , that no previous draft of the ordinanceallowecl only.wall signs, and that a la-year amortiza- tion period is al10wed for projecting signs, with a 5-year limit on al1' others. Counciaman Wingard asked for explanation of the ground rules. He said it was his understanding the i' ordinance wa~ to be taken a section at a time, and that objections could be presented as' the' sections " were disOl ssed. i' Charles Johnston, manager of Federal Sign and Signal Company, said the industry felt the 4' 2" projection limit too restrictive and would result in taking down 100% of ~xisting signs ov~r . 1, a la-year period. He displayed examples of various sizes 'of lettering 'on a 4' 2" area, and ~ I, asked that the limit be changed to alloy;r" 8' 2" ,projection, or at t.he very least, 7' 2" . Dan Herbert, architect, recommended that the compliance time for projecting signs be based from the time of installation. He said it is possible there will be many non-conforming signs which will remain in existence with the result that there-may be a large number of required changes at one time after ten years. He maintained the 4-foot projection allows better visibility and that available options on degree of projection would allow propor- tionately larger lettering. James Pearson, Planning Commission member, said the decision for a 4-foot restriction was based on the economic utilization of materials which are manufactured in 4- and 8-foot . " modules. He said the amortization period was set at ten years to give both merchants and _ the sign industry ,the absolute minimum of economic hardship since evidence indicated more than 90% of the signs in the City are leased on 5-year contracts. He named several cities where no projection of signs is allowed. George Boehnke, Boehnke Printing Company, suggested staggering heights of signs for greater visibility. John Tiffany, Tiffany-Davis Company, said,he felt the sign ,size fo~ a business ~ should not be restricted in relation to the frontage of the building occupied. ~/ Hal Cross, Martin Bros. Sign Company, objected to prohibition of projecting corner signs at street intersections. He said this restriction would require -a merchant to build a sign for each street, where one corner'sign would suffice to att~act the two traffic pat- terns, and that interference with temporary decorations at corners is not a valid reason for the restriction. The Superintendent of Building Inspection explained that decorations and temporary installations would not be considered conflicts, but that a street cor~er is the point of maximum conflict'with other utilities and traffic control devices and that sign clearance becomes a problem. Ray Wolfe, member of the Metro Civic Club ad hoc,committee on sign control, said he felt the 4-footrestriction on projection would benefit the individual businessman, since it . would cut competition to acquire larger signs. He asked if the Planning Commission had ~ considered allowing no projection at all, since he felt the legibility of flat wall signs was greater. .tI Councilman Purdy asked about the normal. sign coverage on a one-story building if the facade is raised. The Superintendent of , Building Inspe ction said architectural elements of a 1 building would 'allow greater projection than on an average building.- I In response to a question from Councilman Anderson, Mr. Johnston said that 25 signs.in the City could be altered to conform to a 7'IZf.. restriction, whereas they would 'have to be re- moved under the 4'2" restriction. He said even with the 10% leeway allowed under the pro- posed Code, the sign industry still prefers 8' 2" projection." ~rs. Niven said she wanted. it made clear that no consideration was given to allowing the 10% leeway on 8' 2" projections- ~ ~ that the 1eeway'of 10% applies only to non-conforming 'signs. ~ '7/l5/68 - 1 279~ .. 7/15/68 . Phyllis Earley, 3945 Mill Street, requested the Council to keep in mind that signs are not the only means of attracting customers. Les Orchard, Orchard Auto Parts Company, mentioned that Medford's restriction to a 4-foot projection has resulted in too many signs with no improvement either in seeing the signs or in the appearance of the City. Ray Wolfe presented petitions signed by about 1200 residents of Eugene supporting the proposed ordinance and in favor of restrictions establishing the purpose of signs for identification, adequate limitation of size and projection, allowing billboards with density controls only in present highway oriented districts, establishing a review com- mittee to evaluate signs over a basic maximum size, and designating lay people as mem- bers of an appeals board. Leonard Frojen, architect, presented slides illustrating "blanketing" and said he felt signs in the downtown area should be pedestrian oriented only. .. Jim Potterf, 2685 Floral Hill Drive, expressed the opinion that downtown businessmen should not have to be regulated. Bill Maddron, 1949 East 28th, favored adoption of the proposed ordinance. He appealed to the Council for protection for those people who do not wish to use large, flamboyant . signs and for the aesthetic value of restrictions on sign size and projection. Albert Strobel, 1010 West 28th, said that downtown Madison, Wisconsin is "coming back" . after prohibition of projecting signs in the downtown area. He said the citizens of that city voted through their council representatives to adopt a sign ordinance when Mr. Potterf inquired if the Eugene sign ordinance would be voted upon by the people. Mr. Strobel suggested use of symbols rather than words to identify merchants. Councilman Wingard said because he would be faced with conflict of interest on part of the proposed ordinance, he would like to see it approved section by section. He moved, seconded by Dr. Purdy, to amend the motion to adopt each major section of the ordinance separately. Motion carried. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mrs. Lauris to adopt Section 1 - Title, Scope and Purpose. Motion carried. . Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mrs. Hayward to adopt Section 2 - Sign Standards by Geographical Area. Mr. Frojen asked the Council to consider providing a restriction of five square feet with two-inch projection in Section 2.ll-A-l (covered in Diagram A) for small signs below 8' 6" level. Mrs. Niven said the Planning Commission has reviewed this request and felt no change was needed. Mr. Orchard said he felt reduction in sign size will decrease tax revenues and adversely affect the County's tax structure and the economy of the County and City. Mr. Strobel said a great deal of revenue in Hawaii is derived from the tourist trade, yet Hawaii allows no billboards at all. e Ray Wolfe referred to Section 2.l1-A-2 - Occupancy Area - and what he felt was discrimination to neighboring businesses when second-floor space is relinquished to a first-floor tennant thereby providing a larger sign area. He felt it weakened the ordinance through future re- use of the second-floor area. Mrs. Niven said the Planning Commission did not consider the point of second- and third-floor vacancies. She also said projecting signs were al- lowed because it was felt businesses occupying buildings with narrow frontages would be at a disadvantage if only flat signs were allowed if located next to a wider frontage with '* its larger wall space. Section 2.12 - Signs Where Buildings Are Set Back From Property Lines - was discussed. Joe Richards objected to the restriction on height of pole signs as written in this section. Mr. Herbert recommended that the Council eliminate roof signs as permitted use in Section 2.12-E, instead including them in Section 3.1 - Special Permit Signs. He said such signs clutter and disrupt the architectural merit of a building and are an impediment to fight- ing fires which may occur. Mrs. Niven, in answer to a question from Councilman Lassen, said there was no problem and no conflict with the Building Code so far as the restrictions set on this type of sign. Mr. Johnston said the sign industry felt the 20-foot height limit is too restrictive and . suggested a 30-foot limit. He also suggested that area limitations for signs for setback buildings be 6" for every vertical foot with a height limitation of 15 feet above the roof line. . Section 2.2 - Integrated Neighborhood Shopping District. Shopping centers to which this section applies were pointed out on the Sign District Map. Ral Cross objected to the re- quired 50-foot setback from the property line. Joe Richards, representing the New Car Dealers Association, objected to the height and size restrictions provided in Section 2.3 - Outlying Commercial District. He presented a Ford Motor Company dealership idenitification program brochure and showed slides and photographs to illustrate that addedheight does not make a sign incompatible with the surroundings and that more clutter is caused by utility poles and wires than by signs. He said allowable sign sizes should be increased by 50% to be more compatible with what can be done with identification and asked exemption of existing .. signs which do not conform to the new requirements until they are removed or need replacement. 7/15/68 - 2 .... 280 .. 7/15/68 I' . -- --- J! I: " Harold Parmenter, president of the New Car Dealers Association, said national identification r; . I' signs should be exempted from these requirements. )! ~ " It was decided to continue the hearing to the July 22, 1968 Council meeting. Brian Obie, Obie Outdoor Advertising, requested that if Section 6 - Billboard Signs and' Other Off-Premise Signs - comes on for discussion at the July 22 meeting it be postponed until July 29 when.he can be present. It was understood Section 6 would be held as requested. I' I' : I Councilman Purdy said he would not be present at the July 22 meeting and wished at this time I: I to voice his personal objection to the rotating and blinking light signs covered in Sec- I' , tions 4.5 and 5-B. i !: the meeting was adjourned to Monday, July 22, 1968. , Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, " :' " IJ - " ,. I " .. I ~ : , , ! , e !I , , j;, ? I, I I' I .. , , - ~ " , 'I , ,I i: I \\ I i' ,. ;;/ ~ 7/15/68 - 3