My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3D - Initiation of Sign Code Amendments
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2012
>
CC Agenda - 05/29/12 Meeting
>
Item 3D - Initiation of Sign Code Amendments
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/25/2012 1:40:49 PM
Creation date
5/25/2012 1:40:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
5/29/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> <br />ECC <br />UGENE ITY OUNCIL <br />AIS <br />GENDA TEM UMMARY <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Initiation of Process for Eugene Sign Code Amendments <br /> <br /> <br />Meeting Date: May 29, 2012 Agenda Item Number: 3D <br />Departments: City Attorney’s Office Staff Contact: Jerry Lidz <br />www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-8447 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />ISSUE STATEMENT <br />The City Council is asked to initiate amendments to the sign code, EC 9.6600 to 9.6680, to consolidate <br />certain exemptions from the permit requirements and to specify a time limit for the City to act on a sign <br />permit application. <br /> <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br /> <br />Eugene’s sign code generally requires a property owner to obtain a permit to install a sign on the <br />person’s property. The code contains 24 exemptions from that requirement – for example: addresses, <br />murals, parking lot signs, public signs. Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notified <br />the City that, in the ACLU’s opinion, some of the exemptions were based on the signs’ content and <br />therefore unconstitutional. In addition, the ACLU expressed concern that the lack of a deadline for City <br />staff to process a sign permit application could, theoretically, allow the City to discriminate against signs <br />with a disfavored message by delaying action on the application. Although the City Attorney’s Office <br />disagreed with those contentions, discussions with the ACLU have resulted in a proposal that addresses <br />the ACLU’s concerns without impairing the City’s ability to protect public safety or prevent the harms <br />associated with unregulated proliferation of signs. The ACLU has agreed that, with the proposed <br />amendments, the sign code would not violate the state or federal constitution. <br /> <br />The proposed amendments to the sign code would: <br /> <br />1. Eliminate the specific exemptions for conference and convention banners, contractor signs, flags, <br />real estate signs and temporary activity signs. Instead, there would be two general exemptions <br />for (a) two freestanding signs or banners, or one of each, in residential zones; and (b) one <br />freestanding sign or banner in a commercial or industrial zone. Each of those signs could not <br />exceed 12 square feet. <br /> <br />(The reason for allowing two exempt signs in residential zones and only one in commercial and <br />industrial zones is that a range of signs are already available by permit in the commercial and <br />industrial zones. The “exemption” means those signs are exempt primarily from the permit and <br />fee requirements. Many other requirements of the sign code would apply.) <br /> <br />2. Make some minor wording changes to some of the other exemptions to make it clear that they <br />are based on the sign’s content. <br /> S:\CMO\2012 Council Agendas\M120529\S1205293D.doc <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.