Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Taylor asked why complaints had to be in writing. Mr. McKerrow said that was a policy decision <br />based on availability of staff resources, need for consistent enforcement, barrier to frivolous or vindictive <br />complaints, and need for complete information. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said it seemed that if an illegal sign was noticed the code should be enforced. She noted that <br />Sign Code enforcement was cut from the budget after Measure 47 and she did not approve at the time. She <br />asked if complaints had to be in writing prior to the budget cuts. Mr. McKerrow said the policy was <br />changed to require a written complaint after the budget cuts. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she wanted to see the policy change reversed. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz felt that enforcement that was complaint-driven was somewhat inequitable and she would be <br />interested in exploring ways to expand opportunities for small businesses to have portable signs. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she was in favor of having a process for examining the issues, but saw some areas of <br />concern. She said if a business with a large sign decided to also have a portable sign by the street the <br />situation could become unmanageable. She pointed out that the portable signs in the photograph were <br />distracting drivers’ attention from a traffic sign warning of the presence of children and a proliferation of <br />sidewalk signs could create traffic and pedestrian hazards. She said there should be very clearly defined <br />criteria for allowing portable signs and that would also require enforcement. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling suggested that any approval of portable signs should include sight distance from driveways and <br />intersections to avoid blocking the view of oncoming traffic. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé asked if real estate signs were currently permitted. Mr. McKerrow replied that the Sign Code <br />included exceptions for real estate signs; however, the exception was for the sign to be placed on the <br />property for sale or lease. He said enforcement of real estate sign regulations was also complaint-driven and <br />recent surveys of two arterials indicated about 15 percent of businesses were currently using illegal portable <br />signs. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé said the real estate industry should be involved in discussions of the Sign Code and well informed <br />about its provisions. He felt the Sign Code should be enforced. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy said the City was proud of its Sign Code, which related to the livability of the community and <br />how it looked and functioned. She was sympathetic to small businesses but felt that portable signs should be <br />the exception instead of the rule. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to include considering allowing portable <br />signs, with reasonable restrictions, during the next code update process to begin this <br />summer. That will mean this issue will be included in the Planning and City Coun- <br />cil discussion for prioritization along with other issues raised during the public out- <br />reach. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested looking at how other jurisdiction had addressed restrictions on portable signs. He felt <br />the signs would be used primarily in strip mall areas. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />