Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/1986 Meeting M I NUT E S e City Council Dinner Work Session Eugene Conference Center--Bloch Room March 17, 1986 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Brian Obie, Mayor; Richard Hansen, Ruth Bascom, Emily Schue, Freeman Holmer, Roger Rutan, Debra Ehrman, Jeff Miller, Cynthia Wooten, councilors; Larry Reed, Susan Brody, Barbara McDonald, Chris Andersen, Kirk McKinley, Jim Croteau, Dave Whitlow, Jim Ellison, Barb Bellamy, staff; Harry Estepe, The Register-Guard. I. SIGN CODE UPDATE e Mr. Croteau reported that the Sign Code update began in the summer of 1985, following the council's consideration of an appeal from the Goodpasture Island dealerships. The Sign Code was adopted in 1970 and has had no major update or comprehensive study since that time. The Citizen Participation process was begun in the summer as well. The committee identified a list of interested parties who were contacted for input. Mr. Croteau listed those as: A. Chamber of Commerce. A presentation was made but the body decided not to take an official position, and to remain neutral. B. Local architects and developers. ) C. Local and regional sign companies. D. League of Women Voters. E. Commission on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. F. Downtown Commission. They were most interested in Sign Code amendments which affected the downtown area. G. Planning Commission. A recommendation from them is included in materials given to the council. Jim Ellison from the Planning Commission was available to answer questions. e Mr. Croteau introduced the 11 major issues identified by the staff, the Chamber of Commerce, the Planning Commission, and the public. He reported that a public hearing was held in October, followed by three work sessions. Approval of the Sign Code changes was recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council in January. Mr. Croteau identified the first major change as an update of the purpose and description sections of the various sign districts. The traffic speeds and road classifications have been removed. Replacing these, the code includes a EXCERPT MINUTES--City Council Work Session March 17, 1986 Page 1 e designation from the Metro Plan Diagram where these sign districts occur. The purpose and description section was also changed to allow the Goodpasture Island dealerships to apply for the Highway-Oriented sign district. The second major issue identified by Mr. Croteau is the streamlining of the Sign Code variance process, with a maximum time period allowed for a decision of 30 days. Decisions appealed from the Building Official would still be heard by the Sign Code Board of Appeals. Also, the City Council is removed from the Sign Code variance process. Mr. Rutan said that he had mixed emotions about this change: that in one way it made good sense, but he wondered if people would feel they would be treated fairly through the Sign Code Board of Appeals. Mr. Croteau responded that the removal of the zoning variance process from the City Council has worked well. He explained that if the Sign Code Board of Appeals feels that the Sign Code needs changing, it can recommend the initiation of a code amendment, and the City Council would have the final decision-making authority. - Mr. Hansen was also uncomfortable with the change and suggested that there be an appeal process which the City Council could choose to be involved in if it wished to do so. He believes that it is going too far when the elected officials have no final say. Ms. Bascom expressed a similar concern and believed that revisions in the code would be difficult to address if the council was not involved in the process. In response to Mr. Miller's question, Mr. Croteau said that when the council considers an appeal, the decision is based on the policy in place at that time; the current process does not allow variance or change of the policy at the same time. In the new process, the Sign Code Board of Appeals would do this in place of the City Council . Mr. Croteau continued reviewing the 11 major issues identified in the staff notes, beginning with number three in the staff report. e 3. Integrated Shopping Sign District Under the current code, each shopping district is allowed one overall identification sign. The change would allow one identity sign per street frontage. Mr. Hansen asked if the individual signs (on Coburg Road) would remain attached to the identity sign, and Ms. McDonald said that this was the Outlying Commercial district where they are allowed; in Integrated Shopping districts they are not allowed (for example, Valley River Center, Oakway, and Southtowne). Mr. Hansen asked if ownership of land had a bearing on the number of signs. Ms. McDonald explained that entrances and traffic patterns determined whether there was an Integrated Shopping district. Mr. Croteau said that if a piece of property was not a part of the integrated group, then another identity sign would be allowed. The proposed change, he further explained, would not further expand or liberalize the existing code, but only allow the same kind of identity sign on each street frontage. Mr. Hansen asked if using the same rules for Outlying Commercial districts and Integrated Shopping districts had been considered. Mr. Croteau said this would be difficult because each business develops as a separate entity with its own parking areas and frontage; a sign is allowed for each business on its frontage. In an Integrated Shopping district, each business is allowed a wall Sign, but not an individual sign on the street frontage. EXCERPT MINUTES--City Council Work Session March 17, 1986 Page 2 e e e 4. Pedestrian Auto Sign District Mr. Croteau said that there was more public testimony received regarding this change than any other. The district covers two areas: the downtown area including the mall, and 13th Avenue between Kincaid and Alder. The provisions proposed allow one sandwich board for each business having street or mall frontage; there are standards for size and specifications. The Downtown Commission requested the change to allow more flexibility in signing in the downtown area. Mr. Hansen asked if this applied to public or private property. Mr. Croteau said that if they were in public right-of-way, the portable signs would also require a mall permit; if on private property, only a sign permit would be required. Ms. Bascom asked if sandwich boards were new, and Mr. Croteau said that they are not permitted under the present code, only tolerated. The City has not enforced the existing provisions until the new code provisions are considered. Some discussion was held regarding the allowable size for sandwich boards, and Mr. Croteau said that the rights of the disabled were a major concern of the Planning Commission in specifying the height and width of the signs. The signs must be within ten feet of the business entrance. He also recommends that administrative guidelines be included in the code to allow the City staff to address the concerns of the disabled community. Ms. Ehrman asked how the provision for sandwich boards fit in with the ordinance in the University area. Ms. Brody replied that sandwich boards would be allowed only in the mall, not in the University area. Mr. Hansen asked why they should be allowed at all. Mr. Croteau answered that the Downtown Commission was very interested in their use, and they are currently used in the mall. Mr. Reed said that the City used to enforce the ordinance disallowing A-frame signs strictly, but when the Sign Code study began, it had tolerated them on the mall. Ms. Ehrman asked if, when the Sign Code provisions are approved, there will be at least an initial strict enforcement of the ordinance. Mr. Croteau replied that the City proposes to do a blanket notice on 13th Avenue businesses, an initial notice to those businesses who are violating the code now, placing newspaper ads, and providing all affected businesses with information about the provisions in order to comply within a certain time period. Mr. Ellison added that enforcement is one of the chief concerns: the proposal includes reduction of the time required to remove the sign or file a compliance report. Ms. Wooten asked why sandwich boards were being regulated in the University district, and Mr. Ellison said that the public testimony both endorsed and criticized them. Ms. Wooten could find no objection to the signs, nor did she believe them to be hazardous. Mr. Hansen questioned why it was all right to use sandwich boards on public land downtown, but not in other places. Mr. Croteau replied that sandwich boards are oriented toward people seeing them as pedestrians, not from cars. If they were allowed in all shopping centers, he believed they would cause considerable visual impact in the community. Ms. Brody added that the council could allow the boards in the University area if they agreed to do so. EXCERPT MINUTES--City Council Work Session March 17, 1986 Page 3 - e e The Pedestrian Auto district provisions, according to Mr. Croteau, would allow unlimited use of flags, banners. and other attention-getting devices, including searchlights in the downtown district. Ms. Ehrman asked if there were restrictions on how long these devices could be displayed, and Mr. Croteau said no. These would also be allowed on 13th Avenue. Restrictions could be added to the provisions. Ms. Wooten questioned why searchlights would be allowed on the mall and who initiated the change. Mr. Croteau said that the Downtown Commission endorsed the provisions. Mr. Hansen questioned why the downtown area could use searchlights, but not Outlying Commercial districts. Mr. Obie asked what the boundaries are of the Pedestrian Auto Sign district: Mr. Croteau identified 13th Avenue north to 5th, east to High, and west to Charnelton. He also said that all other existing regulations stay the same. 5. Provision of Outdoor Merchandising The Planning Commission recommends that there be a reference in the Sign Code that outdoor merchandising is regulated in the zoning ordinances. In response to Ms. Wooten's question. Mr. Croteau said that the ordinance applies to permanent, not temporary, displays. 6. Signing for Businesses Adjacent to Interstate or Limited Access Highways Mr. Croteau cited Delta Village as an example. The provision would allow an identity sign on the Beltline and Delta Highway frontage. Ms. Wooten recalled that the City Council disapproved this sign at a past meeting, and Mr. Obie clarified that the City Council was prohibited from allowing a Sign Code variance. Mr. Croteau also clarified that this would be a wall-mounted sign. Mr. Miller asked about highway identity signs for businesses, and Mr. Croteau said that these were very restricted. 7. Bus Stop Waiting Area Advertisement Mr. Croteau said that this kind of sign is limited to the upright area of the bench on the inside back of the bench and that it must be in an approved location and endorsed by the LTD. The idea was initiated by a citizen and supported by LTD. 8. Allowance of Banners for Community Events These are already allowed; the new provisions increase the allowable size from 100 to 200 square feet and allow sponsor identification on 25 percent of the banner area. They can be posted from 21 to 30 days prior to an event. Both Mr. Miller and Ms. Wooten questioned why 30 days was needed for prior advertising. Mr. Hansen questioned the definition of banner, and Mr. Croteau said that it would be fabric or flexible material. Mr. Rutan asked if any other provisions for banners had been changed, and Mr. Croteau said only in a Pedestrian Auto district. EXCERPT MINUTES--City Council Work Session March 17, 1986 Page 4 e e e 9. Sign Code Enforcement Process The Planning Commission suggested the change because the current enforcement process is long and cumbersome and does not result in equitable treatment of businesses. The two provisions suggested are: 1) removal of signs on public property which allows signs to be removed, the owners notified, and due process followed; and 2} enforcement on private property allows for shortening the process with one inspection of the site, creation of a ten-day notice for compliance (to either remove the violation or submit a compliance plan). If the plan is accepted by the Building Official, then it is filed in Municipal Court; if not adhered to, the violator could be found in contempt of court. Ms. Ehrman asked how people would be notified upon confiscation. Mr. Croteau said notice would be sent to the owner. Ms. Bascom asked if there were many complaints and if confiscation was necessary. Under the present code, according to Mr. Croteau, signs cannot be confiscated by the City. Ms. Wooten believed confiscation to be over-regulation and petty; she suggested that the sign be given to the owner of the business. Mr. Ellison believed the enforcement to be the key to having the ordinance. Ms. Schue wondered why the sign could not be handed to the owner with a notice of the regulations and avoid complicity with the court system. Mr. Hansen disagreed and believed enforcement had to be strict or the signs would simply reappear. Ms. Ehrman objected to the use of the Municipal Court. Ms. Bascom believed the court order was an excessive judgment for a sandwich board violation. Mr. Miller suggested giving tickets. Mr. Croteau replied that without an effective enforcement system, the City cannot enforce the Sign Code. 10. Goodpasture Island Automobile Dealerships The proposal allows the dealerships to be re-designated to the Highway Oriented district, which would allow them additional sign height and the ability to apply for some variances. Mr. Obie pointed out that the proposal does not assume that the dealerships have reached an accord with the City. Mr. Croteau agreed that in order to reach accord, the City would need to agree to their 39- to 44-foot signs. The proposal allows 30-foot-high signs; this is the maximum height allowed in the code. In reply to Ms. Bascom's question, Mr. Croteau said that the dealerships may seek a sign variance also. Mr. Obie gave instructions for the City Council meeting and public hearing. II. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Mr. Whitlow reported that, in preparation for the public hearing tonight, the Planning Commission had forwarded recommendations. Copies of the fiscal year 1986-1987 through 1995-1996 draft of the City of Eugene Capital Improvement Program were distributed. Mr. McKinley reviewed the background of the ten-year document. Almost all the projects are adopted from neighborhood and business requests, and so on. The projects for the first three years are possible to fund from existing revenues. The Citizen Involvement Committee recommended adding a page to the EXCERPT MINUTES--City Council Work Session March 17, 1986 Page 5 e e - CIP which could assist the community in understanding the CIP process. That has been added. The funding for the first three years' projects from the general fund are based on a revenue strategy which includes increasing user fees and an incremental transfer of delinquent property taxes to the CIP. The first year has $1,593,000; the second year, $2.7 million; and the third, $3 million. Most of the projects during the first years are designated urgent and non-postponable, concerning safety, liability, and items which would result in deterioration or increased cost if not done: others include those projects which, if done, would reduce operating costs. A few are projects which, if not done, would not be able to done later because of a lost opportunity or the potential to share funds. Mr. McKinley outlined the Planning Commission recommendations: 1. Addition on the Glenwood Sewer Project. 2. Make some changes in the River Road/Santa Clara Sewer System Project. (The details for these two items are included in the addendum dated February 24, 1986, in the council packets.) 3. Clarify the third paragraph in the introduction to make sure it is understood that when talking about urgent and non-postponable projects, we are talking about general fund. 4. Strongly suggested that the funding predicament needs to be addressed throughout the document, especially the introduction. 5. Examine more closely the operating costs in conjunction with projects, including better operating cost figures in the document. Mr. Whitlow emphasized that the CIP document distributed to the council reflects the original figures for the CIP, not the increased number ($2.3 million) agreed to in the discussion process by the City Council. This document was prepared before the higher level was set. Another tier will be added to include the higher amount by the time the proposed budget is presented to the council. Mr. McKinley identified the major issues in the CIP document: 1. Hu1t Center Projects The question has been asked as to why the projects listed are urgent and non-postponable. His answer was three-fold: a} the Hult was never completed as originally proposed and some of the CIP projects are completions; b} other projects address operating problems which have been identified; and c) if we get the Hult facility more user-friendly, more noticeable, and more recognizable from the street, it is likely that attendance and use will increase and that the Hult will generate more revenue. EXCERPT MINUTES--City Council Work Session March 17, 1986 Page 6 2. Gilham Road Project e Public testimony has been received from the residents as well as a petition signed by 94 people to support the Gilham Road Project in the first fiscal year. 3. 13th and Monroe Traffic Signal Public testimony has been received from the neighborhood in support of this project, urging its completion as soon as possible. 4. Bethel Drive Project The Bethel Triangle Neighborhood recommends moving up the Bethel Drive project, which is in the seven-year category now. This is a $2 million project which the residents would like to be completed. Part of the problem for the City is that Southern Pacific cannot be assessed: they own half of the property next to the road, and they are not in the city boundaries. 5. Dillard Road 6. Bike Paths e Some questions and comments were received as to why they are not included in the CIP. The Bikeway allocation is down from what it was. 7. Park Bonds Project This is in the seven-year period and includes $14 million to implement the first phase of the Parks Master Plan. It also includes a $3 million parkland open space acquisition bond. 8. Street Light Funding It has been noted through testimony that the funding for street lights is down from previous fiscal years. The staff does not list this under urgent and non-postponable. Mayor Obie asked for discussion. Ms. Wooten asked for justification of the Hult projects under the urgent and non-postponable category. Mr. Whitlow replied that the entrance tiles are slippery and have generated two lawsuits and must be replaced with carpets. This is a very high-priority project. The lighting in the Soreng Theater is also related to safety: it is too dark and unsafe. The ticket office renovation is part of the original plan and is a completion item. e Ms. Bascom pointed out that the largest item is heating for the Silva stage. There is no heat, and this is a serious problem for every entertainer for over six months of the year. The other large items are storage area for scenery and the marquee. She felt these items were very important and that some private money would be available. Mr. Whitlow expressed hope that the Eugene Arts Foundation would assist with these projects. There was some discussion regarding signing and a reference made to the subcommittee's decision about EXCERPT MINUTES--City Council Work Session March 17, 1986 Page 7 . e e a sign last year. Ms. Ehrman asked about the storage area, and both Ms. Bascom and Mr. Obie asked for more clarification as to its use and by whom. Ms. Ehrman asked specifically whether the arts organizations used the area and whether they paid for the use of the area. Ms. Ehrman referred to pages 109 and 43 concerning awnings and rain covers and questioned whether the City was responsible for these. Mr. Whitlow said that this was the recommendation of the Downtown Commission. Mr. Obie asked Mr. Ellison what recommendation the Planning Commission made regarding the Hult projects. Mr. Ellison replied that the discussion was generated from the criteria of urgent and non-postponable and that it was questioned that the Hult projects may not be under the criteria. Mr. Hansen asked whether more dollars could be allocated to Public Works road projects. Mr. Whitlow explained that the CIP has provided a very aggressive program for road improvement, doubling the expenditures in order to stay even. This is a major change from prior years (he referred to page 80 of the document). Ms. Bascom asked if Hilyard Street from 11th to 18th avenues was included in the CIP, and it was determined that no, it is not. Mr. Obie questioned why the number one objective of the City, the Airport Expansion Project, was totally ignored in the CIP general fund document and what kind of rationale the City staff has for such an omission. Mr. Whitlow replied that the City staff was looking toward regionally based funding for the airport. Mr. Obie said that there is, as yet, no money found or allocated for the City contribution to the Airport Project. Mr. Whitlow said that the staff would like the City Council to adopt the CIP before adoption of the budget. Ms. Wooten asked how many citizens, neighborhoods, and organizations have provided input to the budget process. Mr. McKinley replied that, in the past, the document has been printed in November and December and circulated widely; because of the income tax measure, there had been a delay in releasing the document, and, therefore, the process has been speeded up. It has been distributed to neighborhood leaders, but presentations have not been made at neighborhood meetings. Ms. Wooten was uncomfortable that so little information had been shared with the citizens. Ms. Schue agreed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. (Recorded by Judy Jernberg) JJ:pv/20l0C EXCERPT MINUTES--City Council Work Session March 17, 1986 Page 8