New Search
November l', 2001 <br /> Mr. Mike McKerrow <br /> Land Use Management Supervisor <br /> 99 West 10 Ave. <br /> Eugene OR.97401 <br /> Dear Mr. McKarrow, <br /> We were given a copy of your letter of October 23` to Mr. Jeff Faust, regarding sponsor signs <br /> on the Sheldon Athletic Fields. <br /> We concur that these graphics do meet the definition of a sign in the Eugene code and they are <br /> messages clearly communicated off site. We would disagree that the impact is not significant. <br /> The impact is significant if you are a neighbor and do not want to look out and see what appears <br /> to us to be billboard alley. <br /> The reason we approved the bond issue that created the multipurpose field was to create parks <br /> and open spaces, that were not intended to be obstructed by advertising. I would offer that if <br /> these signs were placed elsewhere in a residential setting and this is a residential setting, you <br /> would indeed find them in violation of the code. <br /> The terms of the code regarding sign§ in stadiums have not been met in either instance, the new <br /> field or the baseball/softball complex. The fence is not sight obscuring on the multipurpose field <br /> and the school district was informed that the fences erected under this city /district financing could <br /> not be obscured by plastic sheeting or the like. The district policy on advertising on school sites <br /> says they must conform to the sign code. These do not. <br /> In addition, the first condition you outlined has not been met. As early as last week, the signs <br /> were erected on the multipurpose field on Wednesday and not removed until Sunday afternoon. <br /> As you explained the signs would be "temporarily" up for a 4 -5 hour period and then removed <br /> Last week they were up for a 24 hours each day period for 3+ days. A real bargain for the <br /> advertisers. <br /> The second condition you outlined regarding the baseball field screens. The screens did not <br /> obscure the signs from the corner of Norwood and Carmel or the residences to the south along <br /> Norwood and the corner of Monterey. The photographs furnished to you last spring clearly <br /> showed this. As you stated this screen does not meet the specific requirement of the stadium sign <br /> exemption. <br /> Although you agree that the district is not complying with the code, you offer limited city <br /> resources as an excuse for selective enforcement of the code. I will offer the paper and a stamp <br /> so you may write a letter informing them that they are not in compliance. That is all it would take. <br />