Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/05/1968 Meeting 3;S-~ . 8/5/68 _.. ~.----- ----"--------- ----,_._- -- -- -- - - _..~---- ~~--._- - ---- --------- - ---------.._- I Council Chamber Eugene, Oregon , A ugus t 5, 1968 \ Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the meeting held July 29, 1968 - was called to order at 7:30 p.m. on August 5, 1968 in the Council Chamber by His Honor Mayor Edwin E. Cone with the following councilmen present: Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Lauris, Messrs. McNutt, Lassen, Purdy, Mrs. Hayward, and Messrs.McDona1d and Wingard. NEW BUSINESS 1 Proclamation, Canvass Votes July 30, 1968 Special Election - A proclamation was read canvassing the votes cast in the special election held July 30, 1968 to gain approval of a $330,000 levy outside the 6% limitation for the 1968-69 City budget. Votes cast for the measure totaled 5,358; against, 2,910. " Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to approve the proclamation as submitted and read. Motion carried. ORDINANCES 2 Council Bill No. 8585 - Adopting corrected 1968-69 budget and levying tax of $3,920,237, was submitted and read in full. i Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen that the bill beread the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen that the rules be suspended and the bill read the third time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the third time by council bill number only. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 15403. 3 Council Bill No. 8571 - Sign Ordinance (Hearing continued.from July 29, 1968) . Discussion continued on Section 6 - Billboard and Other Off-Premise Signs. .. Councilman McNutt said he would abstain from voting on this section because of conflict of interest. Councilman Lassen moved seconded by Dr. Purdy to amend Section 6 as follows: Section 6.1 B - After the words "Highway Oriented District," add "...Pedestrian Auto District, except 13th Avenue and Alder Street area, and on the following streets north of 11th Avenue in the Industrial District - Garfield, McKinley, Seneca, Obie, and I Bertelson Road. The Pedestrian Auto District to have no new sign locations following the enactment of this ordinance." Section 6.1 E - Delete last sentence and insert instead "Surface area of back-to-back billboards shall be computed at 50% of actual face area and V-shaped structures at 75% of area." Section 6.1 F - After the words "real estate sign" add "...or identity sign,... " '" Mr. Lassen explained his reasons for presenting the amendments. He said, in response to an inquiry from Mrs. Niven, that he would not object to removal of the restricdion on new sign locations in the Pedestrian Auto District. Mr. Lassen with the consent of the second deleted from the motion the last sentence of the proposed amendment to Section 6.1 Breading: "The Pedestrian Auto District to have no new sign locations following the enactment of this ordinance." Councilwoman Hayward asked about implications of these amendments in relation to the Renewal Agency program. The City Attorney replied that the proposed sign ordinance will set specifications and restrictions for the entire City including the Renewal area. He said on those properties which the Agency will acquire and those properties on which the Agency will have a co-operative agreement to bring to Renewal Agency standards, the . Agency can establish and enforce more restrictive sign regulations than those enacted 1I by the City. Councilman Anderson inquired about the implications of the 1300 square foot rule when applied to the Pedestrian Auto District. The Building Superintendent said the 1300 square foot figure was computed to apply only to Highway Oriented Districts and that it would be confusing when applied to the downtown area because of short blocks and streets running in different directions. Mrs. Niven said the billboard sign size for highway districts is computed in relation to property frontage whereas sign size in the downtown district is computed in relation to lot frontage, height of bui1dings,etc., e and that in the industrial district building perimeters enter into the computation. .. 8/5/68 - 1 ~ r--30h .. 8/5/68 . ~- - ~ _. - h - ... - - -- - ~ ~- I[ - ---. )" H I II r, i " Discussian cantinued an implicatians af the amendment if carried, it and haw camputatians II wauld be made far billbaard sign sizes in areas ather than highway ariented;idistricts. \ i: " :1 ;1 Mr. Lassen said his intent in making the matian was to. ease the restrictians an lacatian " I, af billbaard signs in the City sa they wauld be permitted in industrial areas and in I' " :! I: pedestrian auto. districts except far the 13th and Alders area. He said he felt the amend- I: II ment cauld be warked into. the ardinance befare final passage to. make the pravisians af each 'I sectian cansistent. I, " II James Pearsan said same Planning Cammissian members in infarmal discussian felt there :1 wauld be no. seriaus prablems encauntered if the amendment were adapted except far inclu- " Ii sian af specific streets, especially McKinley Street. But he said Cammissian members Ii " d felt allawing billbaards in the pedestrian auto. districd wauld be incampatible with the II II 'I Ii language set aut in Sectian 6.1. He also. painted aut, with respect to. the Cauncil's previaus i' !I I cancern with the impact af billbaard restrictians sa far as payment af taxes an the City's I' rev~nues, that infarmatian fram the Lane Caunty Tax Assessar indicated Obie's tax an all II - I' af his billbaards in the City was negligible, refuting the argument that the restrictia~s ,I an billbaards wauld have a detrimental effect an the City's revenues. II i Mr. Andersan maved secanded by Mrs. Hayward to. amend the prapased amendment to. Sectian 6 by deleting " " II all af that par8;graph amending Sectian 6.1 B except the wards to. be added. after "Highway Oriented I, I District" reading "...and an the fallawing streets narth af 11th Avenue in the Industrial District - Gar fie ld , Seneca, Obie, and Bertelsan Raad." (Amendments to. Sectian 6.1 E and to. 6.1 F to. remain.) I 'I On inquiry fram Cauncilman Andersan, Mrs. Niven estimated the number af billbaards allawed I under this versian wauld abaut dauble the number allawed as the ardinance is naw written. ~ Cauncilman Wingard said he wauld abstain fram vating an this sectian because af canflict af interest: . A vate was taken an the matian to. amend 'the amendment to. Sectian 6, and matian was defeated, Cauncil- men Lauris, Andersan, and Hayward vating aye; Cauncilmen Purdy, Lassen, McDanald and M~ar Cane vating no.; Cauncilmen McNutt and Wingard abstaining. i, A vate was taken an the prapased amendment to. Sectian 6 as ariginally stated, excluding the last :1 I sentence cancerning new sign lacatians, and matian carried, Cauncilmen Purdy, Lassen, McDanald, and II " Mayar Cane vating yes; Cauncilmen Lauris, Andersan, and Hayward vating no.; Cauncilmen McNutt and i; , Wingard abstaining. 'I !I 0 The questian was called far an ,the matian to. adapt Sectian 6 as amended. ,I The City Attarney said because af the effect that the amendment will have an the re~ainder af Sectian 'i 6, staff wark will be required ta.reward .that sectian. I Mr. Lassen maved secanded by Mrs.Hayward to. table Sectian 6 as amended tempararily. Matian carried. Mr. Andersan .maved secanded by Mr. Las'sen to. remave Sectian 2 - Sign Standards - fram the table. Matian carried. Cauncilman Lassen called attentian to. the w~rd "grade" in Sectian 2.52 and asked whether it " I il ~--..,:~ applied to. street grade, prap,erty grade, etc. The Building Superintendent explained the methad af determining the grade, defined in Sectian 11, when it daes nat spectfically state that it is street grade. , Mrs. Niven calied attentian to. changes recammended by the Planning Cammissian nat previausly I II ., i submitted to. the Ca~ncil and listed an Summary af Changes to. Sign Ordinance to. August 5,1968. " !, , \ I Cauncilman McNutt cammented that special appeal pravisians shauld be included in the :1 ,i ardinance to. allaw signs autside the res.trictians if in gaad prapartian and nat affensive. " Mrs. Niven called attentian to. Sectian 3.1 cavering Special Permits and explained the ,I Cammissian's thinking in recammending the regulatians. I! , Phyllis Early urged the Cauncil to. adapt a strang sign' ardinance. She cited the invest- 11 " ment by individual praperty awners in residentia~ areas and said the restrictians ar~ necessary to. ensure campliance by businessmen'and develaper~. " i Mr. Andersan maved secanded by Mrs. Lauris to. amend Sectian 2 to. .incorparate the recammended changes 'I to. Sectians 2, 2.12 C,:.'2.24 B, 2.33 B, 2.4, 2.45, 2.5, and 2.61 A and B as listed an the Summary af Changes to. Sign Ordinance to. August 5, 1968, recamme,nded by the Planning Cammissian. Matian carried. I' . II :1 !I , A vate was taken an the matian (July 15, 1968 meeting) to. adapt Sectian 2 - Sign Standards by Gea- I IJ 'i graphic Area - as amended, and matian carried. II i I, " Mr. Andersan maved secanded by Mrs. Lauris that Sectian 3 - Special Signs - be remaved fram the table. :: Matian carried. I : I , ji , Mr. Andersan maved seconded by Mr, Lassen to. amend' Section 3 by making the changes to. .Sectians 3.31 'I , and 3.33 as listed an the Summary af Changes to. Sign Ordinance to. August 5, 1968 recammended by the II Planning Cammissian. :1 II e I it l' 8/5/68 - 2 3.0~ . 8/5/68 The Superintendent of Building Inspection called attention to the lack of regulation on . height in Section 3.33. Mr. Anderso~with the consent of the second, added the words "...and not more than 8 feet in height." to the amendment to Section 3.33. A vote was taken on the amendment as amended, and motion carried. A vote was taken on the motion (July 29, 1968 meeting) to adopt Section 3 as amended, and motion as amended carried. Mr. Anderson said he felt rotating signs should be permitted in highway oriented and industrial dis- tricts, but eliminated in commercial areas, and he moved, seconded by Mr. Wingard to reconsider Section 4 as adopted at the July 29, 1968 meeting. Motion carried. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Wingard that the amended Section 4.5 be amended to allow rotating it' signs in highway oriented and industria1'districts, providing they do not rotate in excess of five revolutions per minute, and to provide that reader boards shall not be allowed to rotate. Mrs. Niven called attention to the recommended addition of Section 4.8 setting regula- tions with regard to "blanketing" signs. The City Manager suggested the word "substantially" be inserted in the first sentence of Section 4.8 between the words "to" and "obstruct." . Mr. Anderson with the consent of the second included in the motion the amendment to Section 4.6 and addition of Section 4.8, including the change to make it read "...so as to substantially obstruct the . view...," as recommended by the Planning Commission and listed on the Summary of Changes to Sign Ordinance to August 5, 1968. Councilman Purdy asked for separate vote on each section, and a vote was taken on Section 4.5 as amended. Motion carried, Councilmen Lauris and Purdy voting no. A vote was taken on Section 4.6 as amended, and motion as amended carried. A vote was taken on Section 4.8 as amended, and motion as amended carried. Mr.Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Wingprd to adopt Section 4 as amended, and motion carried. . Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to adopt Section 5 - Illumination. Motion carried. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to adopt Section 7 - Construction Requirements. The City Attorney said that future modification of the Uniform Code is contradictory to Oregon Law and suggested the words "...and the additions and modifications hereinafter made..." be deleted. The Superintendent of Building Inspection said that with this dele- tion there will be future expansion of the section because future changes in the Uniform Building Code could be contradictory to this ordinance. Mr. Anderson with the consent of the second changed his motion' to delete the words as recommended. . A vote was taken to adopt the section as amended, and motion as amended carried. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to adopt Section 8 - Permits and Fees. Charles Johnston asked for deletion of the requirement inthe second paragraph of Section 8.1 for architect's or licensed engineer's seal on sign structure plans. The Superintendent of Building Inspection said this requirement was included to establish better criteria for ~ design of sign structures more in line with criteria required for building structures. He said it was his understanding the sign industry would submit a standard design with regard to pole support, angle brackets, etc., so that plans for individual sign structures could be checked against the standard design, thereby not necessitating an architect's or engineer's seal on each set of plans so long as they conform to the standard. James Pearson explained that the Planning Commission did not feel it proper to place the burden of setting standards on the Building Department and that members of the sign in- dustry had indicated they would be willing to work up tables for this purpose. Mr. Johnston said the sign industry would approve this arrangement, but the wording of the ordinance has not been changed to permit it. . Mr. Wingard moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to amend Section 8.1 by adding at the end of the second para- graph the words "...or conform to a table mutually agreed upon by the Superintendent of Building In- spection and sign industry." Motion carried. , Mr. Johnston said the industry objected to the requirement for payment of an annual fee and asked for deletion of Section 8.3 B. James Pearson explained that the Planning Commission felt there is constant inspection and enforcement, and the fee should serve as a reminder to the individual that he is using pub lic proper ty . Dick Richards objected to the exclusion in Section 8.4 from licensing requirements those . persons painting wall signs. 8/5/68 - 3 .... r: 308 . 8/5/68 j,t /: ;i Mr. Emmons renewed the Outdoor Advertising Association's request for more reasonable fees, 11 particularly on standardized structures. . Ii I " Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to delete the words "...other than signs painted on the wall I !: of a building or structure or billboard..." from the first paragraph of Section 8.4. Motion carried. " ! A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Section 8 as amended. Motion as amended carried. " Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mrs. Lauris to adopt Section 9 - Inspection and Safety. Mayor Cone suggested that Section 9.3 - Removal of Signs - designate that the City should not pay for removal of any signs which.are not removed by the owner. Mrs. Niven said the City Attorney advised the Commission that the property owner has no obligation since he contracted for the sign 'only, and the provisions of this paragraph were.based on the assumption that contact would not be possible with whoever installed the signs which needed to be removed. A vote was taken on the motion as stated, and motion carried. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to adopt Section 10 - Nonconforming Signs. .. Mrs. Niven reviewed changes to this section recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mrs. Lauris to amend Section 10 to include revisions to Section 10.12 , and 10.13, changing to a standard period of five years for nonconforming signs to meet requirements of .. , the ordinance, and substituting for Section 10.3 the rewritten Section 10.3 as shown in the Summary of " Changes to Sign Ordinance to August 5, 1968, and that each secd on be voted on separately. . i' The City Attorney strongly recommended uniformity for whatever period of time is established for bringing nonconforming uses to requirements and resulting period of amortization. He i: said if any classification is treated differently there must be a basis for the differentiation. I, Ed Fadeley, representing the Motel Owners Association, suggested a~ amendment which would provide more than a five-year amortization period for signs which are constructed as part of a building. He said depreciation schedules for some of these s~gns are set up for tax purposes in line with the building to which they are attached and that a ten-year amortiza- : tion .period would create less economic hardship. ~s.. Niven urged the ~ouncil to retain the five-year requirement. She said about 95% of I the signs in Eugene are leased and the average value of the signs is not enough to create real har,dship. She said if serious problems do arise, they wo~ld be recognized and adjust- ments could be made on the depreciation factor. Mr. Pearson said he felt very few signs would be amortized on the basis of a building structure, and that it should be recognized the signs can be remodeled to conform to the provisions of the ordinance. Douglas McKay objected to the takedown time allowed under the ordinance. He said signs in the Oakway Mall were installed un~er an ordinance which they.thought would allow the signs to remain for the length of the lease, and the leases run for 15 years. He said there is considerable more value involved than indicated by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Pauline Tif~any suggested adding a paragraph to Section 10 to provide, she said, an . equitable solution to economic hardship presented by the ordinance. The suggested addi- tion was: "Compensation shall be paid by ;'he City to owners of ,any sign required to be removed before it has been completely depreciated, compensation to be based on number of years remaining as shown by depreciation schedule submitted to the Internal Revenue Service." '. Mr. Masengil of Aerolite Signs expressed concern that money invested in rotating signs could not be regained from lessees of signs if they are forced to stop the rotation. '" Mrs. Niven called attention to the provisions of Section 4.8 and said it was not the in- tent of the Planning .Commission that "blanketing" signs be removed within six months. She also referr~d to Section 12.21 with regard to objections of the Motel Owners- and said the wording of the last sentence in that section could be changed to read "...related to the size, location, or cost of a new sign.... " Then if a sign situation is completely different from all other sign situations, the Board of Appeals could grant relief. Gordon Cottrell said the Used Car Dealers still feel their situation is different from that of the New Car Dealers with regard to the three-year amortization period for string lights. He said replacement illumination fO,r the string lights would require a large capital investment and create a real hardship on some of the used car dealers. He said the lights do not serve the purpose of a sign as such and asked for at least a five-year t takedown schedule. Discussion followed on results if lights were turned off after certain hours, and possible ,t reduction in intensity of lighting. The City Attorney commented that other sections of ./ the ordinance control lighting for security purposes and nuisance illumination for resi- dential areas surrounding shopping centers. Mr. Cottrell reiterated the position that there is considerable capital investment, and replacement within three years could in some cases put a used car dealer out of business. Fred Braatz said he agreed with the addition suggested by Mrs. Tiffany with regard to re- payment for investment in signs. ~. ~ 8/5/68 - 4 309~ . 8/5/68 . A vote was taken on the amendment to Section 10.12. Motion carried. A vote was taken on the amendment to Section 10.13. Motion carried. The question was called for on the adoption of the new Section 10.3 Councilman Wingard expressed concern about the six-month removal period for signs under Section 4.5 and 4.8 and the five-year period for string lights. Dr. Purdy moved to amend the new Section 10.3 A to exclude Sections 4.5 and 4.8. There was no second. Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to amend the new Section 10.3 A to change the three-year period to five years, delete all language contained in parentheses beginning, "(The added time...)," and to exclude Section 4.8. Motion carried. A vote was taken on adoption of the new Section 10.3 as amended, and motion as amended carried. .. A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Section 10 as amended. Motion as amended carried. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to adopt Section 11 - Definitions - including the correc- tions listed on the Summary of Changes to Sign Ordinance to August 5, 1968. Motion carried. . Mr.Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to adopt Section 12 - Enforcement and Administration. . Mr. Fadeley requested the section be amended to allow the Appeals Board a method of pre- venting hardship with regard to specific signs. Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by Mr. Anderson to amend the last sentence of Section 12.21 to read "...re- lated to the cost, size, or location of a new sign.... " Motion carried. Councilman Wingard asked the City Attorney for his opinion with regard to the provisions of Section 12.22 A which excludes members of the sign industry from the Board of Appeals. The City Attorney said it was legal as written. Considerable discussion followed with the main point being the numerous times a member would be abstaining from voting because of conflict of interest should he have financial interest in the sign industry. The City Attorney was asked what constituted financial interest, and he replied it would be same- t one connected with the sign industry - a manager, stockholder in a corporation, an employe, etc. Hal Cross suggested appointment of a member of the sign industry to the Board with an alternate member to serve in the event of abstention. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. McNutt to amend Section 12.22 A to provide for appointment of a member of the sign industry to serve as adviser only to the Board of Appeals and without a vote, the term to be for three years. Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by Mrs. Hayward to amend the amendment making the term of service one year. Motion defeated, Councilwomert Lauris and Hayward voting yes. . A vote was taken on the amendment to Section 12.22 A as originally stated, and motion carried, Councilwomen Lauris and Hayward voting no. A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Section 12 as amended, and motion as amended carried. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to adopt Section 13 - Conflict and Severability. Motion carried. &- Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to adopt Section 14 - Amendments and Change in District Boundaries - including the addition to Section 14.02 recommended by the Planning Commission arid listed on the Summary of Changes to Sign Ordinance to August 5, 1968, giving notice of public hear- ing of any proposed change in district boundaries. Motion carried. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to adopt Section 15 - Penalties. Motion carried. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to adopt Section 16 - Effective Date. Motion carried. It was agreed that final action on Sections 6 and 17 would be delayed until the final ordinance document incorporating the amendments is prepared and brought back for consideration. . Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Dr. Purdy to reconsider Section 4.5. Motion carried. Mr. Wingard moved seconded by Mr. Lassen that Section 4.5 as originally recommended and presented by ., the Planning Commission be adopted. Motion carried, Mrs. Lauris voting no. On motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned. ~L~ H McKinley ~. City Manager 8/5/68 - 5 ....