Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> e IV. REVISIONS TO THE SIGN CODE <br /> Marsha Miller, of the Planning and Development Department, reviewed the staff <br /> report on the proposed changes to the Sign Code. In response to a question <br /> from Ms. Ehrman, she said existing electronic message centers would be <br /> "grandfathered in." <br /> CB 4240--An ordinance concerning signs; requiring permits, and <br /> regulating the size and number of signs; adding <br /> Sections 9.1000, 9.1002, 9.1004, 9.1006, 9.1008, <br /> 9.1010, 9.1014, 9.1016, 9,1020, 9.1030, 9.1031, <br /> 9.1033, 9.1035, 9.1037, 9.1039, 9.1041, 9.1043, and <br /> 9.1050 to the Eugene Code, 1971; amending Sections <br /> 9.015, 9.734, 9.736, 9.738, and 9.740 of that code; <br /> renumbering Sections 9.830 to 9.990 of that code; <br /> repealing Sections 8.610 to 8.855 of that code; and <br /> declaring an emergency. <br /> Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, that the bill, with <br /> unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by <br /> council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at <br /> this time. <br /> Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that Section 9.1008 <br /> e of the Sign Code, the fourth section, be amended to end with <br /> the date 1997, rather than 2005. <br /> Mr. Gleason said it was difficult to calculate what this change from IS to 7 <br /> years would mean in terms of cost analysis. He said there were probably five <br /> signs in the City which would be affected by this regulation. He said the <br /> City would probably not be involved in any litigation if the owners of non- <br /> conforming signs were given 15 years to comply with the Sign Code, but that <br /> as the number of years for compliance were shortened the chance increased <br /> that a lawsuit could be won. <br /> Mr. Gary said his best guess was that the fewer years given a sign owner to <br /> comply with changes to the Sign Code, the greater the likelihood that a court <br /> would find that there had been a taking. He said if the council changed the <br /> number of years for compliance from 15 to 7 years, it increased the risk that <br /> the court would find in favor of the sign owner. He said that once the court <br /> found that there had been a taking there was the question of the value of <br /> what was taken. He said billboards were appraised based on their income <br /> potential. <br /> Mr. Gary said that if a sign had a value of $60,000, based on its income <br /> potential, and a life expectancy of 15 years, the amount the City might have <br /> to pay the owner could be calculated accordingly. In response to a question <br /> e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 25, 1990 Page 9 <br />