Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />e Ms. Bascom asked about how the updated sign code would govern a situation in <br /> which a tree located in the public right-of-way was obstructing the visibili- <br /> ty of a sign. In response, Mr. Rutan said that in this event, the City would <br /> have the ultimate decision whether to trim or cut the tree, but would not be <br /> required to do so. <br /> Ms. Ehrman voiced concern that the IS-year time allotted for the removal of <br /> non-conforming signs is too liberal. She asked whether any consideration was <br /> given to shortening this time frame. Mr. Weber explained that IS years was <br /> determined by the Planning Commission to be a sufficient amount to get the <br /> maximum value out of a recently-erected sign. The commission did not discuss <br /> the possibility of making a distinction in the IS-year removal requirement <br /> between old and new signs. <br /> Ms. Ehrman expressed her opposition to the variance which allows non-conform- <br /> ing signs to be exempt from the IS-year removal requirement simply on the <br /> basis of spacing. <br /> Mr. Rutan disagreed with Ms. Ehrman, saying that this IS-year removal re- <br /> quirement for non-conforming signs represents a fair and reasonable compro- <br /> mise between the City and the billboard industry. <br /> Ms. Bascom remarked that part of the impetus behind undertaking this sign <br /> code update was to decrease the visual clutter posed by numerous signs on 6th <br /> and 7th avenues. She asked about the impact this update will have on meeting <br /> that goal. Mr. Gleason said that at the end of IS years, the impact of this <br />e ordinance on visual clutter would be minimal. <br /> Mr. Miller reminded the council that in considering the possibility of making <br /> the sign code more restrictive, it must remain aware of the potential for <br /> property owner litigation. <br /> Mr. Bennett said that he believes that billboards are different from other <br /> types of signs necessary to advertise a business. He expressed his opposi- <br /> tion to the spacing exemption for non-conforming billboards. <br /> Mr. Rutan suggested that the council direct staff to undertake further sign <br /> code negotiations surrounding the IS-year removal period for non-conforming <br /> billboards in order to reach a compromise which will be acceptable to both <br /> the industry and the council. He noted that he believes IS years to be a <br /> fair amount of time for sign amortization. <br /> Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, to remove the spacing <br /> exemption for sign removal from the proposed sign code. The <br /> motion carried, 4:2; with councilors Boles, Bascom, Bennett, <br /> and Ehrman voting aye; and councilors Green, and Rutan voting <br /> nay. <br /> (Councilor Boles left the meeting at 1:00 p.m.) <br />e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1990 Page 6 <br />