05/09/1990 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ IV. WORK SESSION: SIGN CODE John Weber, Planning and Development Department, provided the council with a brief staff report. On June 27, 1988, the council adopted an interim Sign Code. At that time, the council also directed staff and the Planning Commission to prepare a revised, permanent Sign Code. Mr. Weber noted that a slight change was made to the proposed Sign Code which should be reflected on page 17 of the council notes. A revision was made to the General Commercial Sign District requiring that if two wall signs are chosen for a business, they must be on separate walls. e Ms. Nathanson, Eugene Planning Commission President, briefly reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations for changes to the interim Sign Code. She indicated that the nature of the recommended changes affect both the way in which sign allowances are calculated and the maximum allowable sign size. The changes also recommend a decrease in the maximum allowable size for a billboard. In her opinion, the Planning Commission's recommendations provide a good balance between liberalizing and strengthening the Sign Code. Ms. Nathanson said that in response to public testimony, the Planning Commission ;s recommending that signs with internal illumination be prohibited in residential districts because of the glare they provide. Mr. Rutan said that given the degree of controversy which is inherent in a Sign Code issue, that an arbitration process between the commission and the public might be beneficial. Ms. Nathanson agreed that such a process might be beneficial for all signs except billboards. She noted that two public forums and two public hearings have been held on the Sign Code issue; the revised Sign Code reflects public concern. Ms. Schue agreed with Mr. Rutan's suggestion and said that the council may, after the public hearing, want to set parameters around the Sign Code proposal. Mr. Boles asked whether the Planning Commission's research in preparation for Sign Code revision has taken into account the types of codes provided in western Europe where signs are considered as informational rather than for advertising purposes. Ms. Nathanson said that no such consideration was given, partly because in Oregon, signs must be content neutral. Mr. Miller asked about how the Planning Commission was able to achieve a balance between the need through Sign Code regulation to improve the aesthetic value of the community and the financial constraints which will be imposed on businesses by tighter regulation. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that considerable discussion had taken place at the Planning Commission level regarding the impact of the new Sign Code on businesses. In order to achieve its goal of visual clutter elimination and to remain equitable to both new and old businesses, the Planning Commission had recommended that all signs - MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1990 Page 6