My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item A: Amendments to Eugene Sign Code
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2012
>
CC Agenda - 10/24/12 - Work Session
>
Item A: Amendments to Eugene Sign Code
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/19/2012 1:08:18 PM
Creation date
10/19/2012 11:18:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
10/24/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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 />ECC <br />UGENE ITY OUNCIL <br /> <br />AIS <br />GENDA TEM UMMARY <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Work Session: Amendments to Eugene Sign Code <br /> <br /> <br />Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Agenda Item Number: A <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 will hold its second work session on proposed amendments to the City’s Sign Code, <br />EC 9.6600 to 9.6680. The amendments would consolidate several exemptions from the permit <br />requirements, set size limits for exempt signs and specify a time limit for the City to act on a sign permit <br />application. <br /> <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br />Impetus for amendments. Eugene’s Sign Code generally requires a property owner to obtain a permit to <br />install a sign on the person’s property. The code contains 24 exemptions from that requirement – for <br />example: addresses, murals, parking lot signs, public signs. Last year, the American Civil Liberties <br />Union (ACLU) notified the City that, in the ACLU’s opinion, some of the exemptions were based on the <br />signs’ content and therefore unconstitutional. In addition, the ACLU expressed concern that the lack of <br />a deadline for City staff to process a sign permit application could, theoretically, allow the City to <br />discriminate against signs with a disfavored message by delaying action on the application. <br /> <br />Although the City Attorney’s Office disagreed with those contentions, neither the City Attorney nor <br />planning staff was committed to the current code’s approach to the exemptions. Discussions with the <br />ACLU have resulted in a proposal that addresses the ACLU’s concerns without impairing the City’s <br />ability to protect public safety and prevent unregulated proliferation of signs. The ACLU has agreed <br />that, with the proposed amendments, the sign code would not violate the state or federal constitution. <br /> <br />The draft amendments address the specific concerns raised by the ACLU and are not a general revision <br />of the Sign Code. <br /> <br />Draft ordinance. The proposed amendments to the Sign Code would: <br /> <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: (a) <br />on a property used for a single-family residence or a duplex -- two freestanding signs or banners, or <br />one of each; and (b) on all other properties -- one freestanding sign or banner. (A “banner” is a sign <br />made of non-rigid material that is not enclosed by a frame; a flag is one kind of banner.) Each of <br />those signs could not exceed 12 square feet. The “exemption” means those signs are exempt from <br />permit and fee requirements. <br />S:\CMO\2012 Council Agendas\M121024\S121024A.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.