My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 6: Ordinance on Sign Standards
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2012
>
CC Agenda - 11/26/12 Meeting
>
Item 6: Ordinance on Sign Standards
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/21/2012 3:59:56 PM
Creation date
11/21/2012 3:29:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
11/26/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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 />ECC <br />UGENE ITY OUNCIL <br />AIS <br />GENDA TEM UMMARY <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Action: An Ordinance Concerning Sign Standards and Amending Sections 9.0500, <br />9.6610, 9.6615 and 9.6630 of the Eugene Code, 1971 <br /> <br /> <br />Meeting Date: November 26, 2012 Agenda Item Number: 6 <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 />ISSUE STATEMENT <br />The City Council is scheduled to take action on proposed amendments to the City’s Sign Code, EC <br />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 <br />permit application. <br /> <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br />Impetus for amendments. Eugene’s Sign Code generally requires a property owner to obtain a <br />permit to install a sign on the person’s property. The current code contains 24 exemptions from <br />that requirement – for example: addresses, murals, parking lot signs, real estate signs, public <br />signs. Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notified the City that, in the ACLU’s <br />opinion, some of the exemptions were based on the signs’ content and therefore unconstitutional. <br />In addition, the ACLU expressed concern that the lack of a deadline for City staff to process a sign <br />permit application could, theoretically, allow the City to discriminate against signs with a <br />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 <br />the ACLU have resulted in a proposal that addresses the ACLU’s concerns without impairing the <br />City’s ability to protect public safety and prevent unregulated proliferation of signs. The ACLU has <br />agreed that, if the proposed amendments are adopted, it would not challenge the Sign Code’s <br />constitutionality. <br /> <br />The draft amendments address the specific concerns raised by the ACLU and are not a general <br />revision of the Sign Code. <br /> <br />Changes after October 24 Work Session. <br />At the October 24 Work Session, the City Council’s discussion focused on increasing the allowable <br />size of an exempt banner from 12 to 15 square feet, so that a typical-size American flag would <br />come within the exemption. The proposed ordinance now includes that change. <br />S:\CMO\2012 Council Agendas\M121126\S1211266.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.