07/11/1990 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e agency's making promises to a company which are not supported by the City Council. Mr. Lively invited the council to attend a meeting of the Metro Partnership Board. Mr. Boles requested feedback from the Metro Partnership on the results of this discussion. III. WORK SESSION: PROPOSED SIGN CODE REVISIONS John Weber, Planning and Development Department, provided a summary of the recommended revisions to the Sign Code. He reminded the council that on May 14, 1990, the council conducted a public hearing to consider comprehensive revisions to Eugene's sign regulations. Following the hearing, the council deferred action to allow staff time to respond to testimony and council comments. After providing council direction on the items discussed in the report, staff will work with the City Attorney to amend the proposed code and bring it back for council adoption on July 25, 1990. Mr. Weber said that staff met several times with members of the billboard industry to discuss issues raised at the May 14 public hearing. Following these discussions, several revisions were made to the Sign Code. He noted that although these revisions represent changes over the Planning Commis- sion's recommendations, they remain consistent with its intent. e Mr. Weber stated that the first major change to the draft Sign Code reviewed by the council on May 14, 1990, has to do with the maximum billboard area and increases the area allowable for a billboard from 200 square feet to up to 250 square feet on certain designated streets. Another major change has to do with billboard spacing and removal. The draft sign code requires that billboards be spaced at least 350 feet apart when on the same side of the street and 150 feet apart when on opposite sides of the street. Mr. Weber noted that if spacing is the only reason that a billboard does not conform to the regulations, however, the proposed Code contains an amendment which would exempt the billboard from the IS-year removal requirement. Staff is uncer- tain how many billboards this latter change would affect. Referring to Page 3 of the staff notes regarding sign height, Ms. Ehrman asked whether a "financial hardship" could be considered "a practical diffi- culty or unnecessary hardship which may result from the location of existing structures on the site or in the vicinity" and would, therefore, be suffi- cient grounds for approving a sign variance. Mr. Weber said that it would not. Responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Rutan, Mr. Weber said that the members of the billboard industry have agreed to the updated sign code as it now stands and would be willing to live with an ordinance regulated by these standards. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1990 Page 5 /