02/11/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Side I 0001 - . . , ,i MINUTES EUGENE CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBER FEBRUARY 11, 1974 Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on February 11, 1974 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Messrs. Williams, Hershner, McDonald, Mrs. Campbell, and Messrs. Murray and Wood. Council members Beal and Keller were 'absent. ' I - Public Hearings A. Appeal, Sign Code Board of Appeals Denial Holiday Inn SIgn Variance Copies of November '19, 1973 minutes covering Sign Code Board of Appeals denial of Holiday Inn request were previously distributed to Council members. Council members also had viewed the property on tour. The request was for variance from the Code to permit location of the sign now in front of the Inn on Coburg Road to the southwest corner of the property so it would be visible from 1-105. In addition, the Inn re- quested permit for installation of a pole-mounted sign with attached reader board within the lS-foot setback from the property line on Coburg Road reserved for identity signs only. Public hearing was opened. David James, attorney representing the local Holiday Inn, said that they did not be- lieve it was the intent of the Code to deny variance for nonconformance to national firms with standard signs. Discontinuing use of the standard Holiday Inn sign, he said, would also represent economic hardship since its value was placed at $20,000 and it could be used for about ,37 years.' He felt the use of the standard Holiday Inn \ sign important to his client. N. W. Hager, 2076 Westwood Lane, manager of the local Inn, felt the type of sign allowed under the Code on Coburg Road'would create a safety hazard because if would not be seen by motorists on Coburg Road far enough in advance to avoid sudden stops for turning into the Inn. He called attention to the Holiday Inn frontage on Coburg Road and said other motels in the city with less frontage would be allowed larger signs than they. And he felt some consideration should be given use of their sign for announcements of civic and University events. He felt the Holiday Inn was in a different position because of being a top contributor to the room tax revenues and, through employment of local people~ to the general economy of the city. He thought location of a sign in compliance with the lS-foot setback would be of no value so far as advertising the Inn. Mr. James described the property on which the Holiday Inn was located and the proposal for moving the large sign now facing Coburg Road to the new location faving 1-105 where only one side of the sign'would be used. He felt there was discrimination be- cause many motels with more frontage would have a competitive advantage since identity sign space was calculated on a front footage basis. This he felt significant because of reliance of the motel industry on traveling people. He mentioned too.the frontage on Coburg Road in relation to other businesses which would block a conforming sign from view of motorists. He also felt it would constitute discrimination if the variance was denied when the request was for a standard sign used on a nationwide basis. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Patti Johnson, building division of Public Works Department, explained that under the Code the Holiday Inn would be allowed 100 square feet per face' on a sign on Coburg Road within the identity setback, and 480 square feet of miscellaneous signing any- place on the property so long as it was behind the lS-foot setback. The Holiday Inn proposal would total 1904 square feet. Mr. James, in response to questions, said that authorization was received from Holiday Inns to r~move a portion of the present sign. He added that the existing billboard facing 1-105 would be removed. He pre- sented a sketch of the sign proposed for theCoburg Road side and said the roof top sign for:' the restaurant could be removed if that was a requirement for granting the requested variance. Manager explained that Council was not prohibited from granting a variance because a sign was of national standard. He added that the limitation on amount of signfng per front foot was based upon the purpo'se of the sigh ordin'ance to reduce the to'tal impact of signing on a street by reducing the cluttered appearance, and it would not seem' the public body's responsibility to equalize the competitive advantage because an estab- lishment had more front footage so had more sign' sp'ace. In answer to Councilman McDonald, Manager said a reader board would be permitted if it was located behind the lS-foot setback. A sign showing the name "Holiday Inn" only could be located within the setback area. 40 2/11/74 - 1