03/17/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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