06/25/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In response to a question by Councilor Holmer, Ms. McDonald stated that the petitioners had not presented any analysis indicating that the customers arrived - by Beltline Road or Delta Highway. In response to a question, she explained that staff had estimated that a height of approximately 60 feet would be neces- sary for the sign to be visible from Beltine Road; she said a 3D-foot height limitation was allowed only in the Highway-Oriented Sign Districts. The public hearing was opened. Kevin Jones, 1678 West 7th Avenue, representing the Delta Oaks Shopping Center, stated that the Jones Sign Systems was requesting a height variance of 10 feet for the shopping center identity sign to provide the maximum exposure for that one sign. With an average of 40,000 vehicles traveled on Beltline Road, 6,000 on Delta Highway and only 850 on Greenacres Road, he felt that the majority of the customers to the shopping center would arrive from Beltline Road or Delta Highway, thus justifying the needed variance. He stated that a height of only 20 feet might allow damage to the sign by campers and freight trucks while a 30-foot sign properly located would allow sufficient reaction time to provide motorists on Beltline Road or Delta Highway the opportunity to exit. Mr. Jones added that his company had tested a sample sign three weeks before the appeal date and felt that a 30-foot high sign was visible from Burch's Shoe Fair on Greenpasture Island Road and the eastbound lane of Beltline but was limited in the westbound lane. While he stated that he was reluctant to question the judgement of the Board of Appeals, Councilor Holmer felt that a judgement based on the Highway-Oriented Sign District might be more appropriate than on the Integrated Shopping District. - He said the council could make an exception if 30-foot signs were allowed in the former districts. Councilor Hansen recognized that a review of the Sign Code might be appropriate, but he felt that arbitrarily granting a variance would be unfair to other businesses that might also be having difficulties. He stated that he will not support granting a variance but would suggest that a review be performed. Councilor Obie supported Mr. Hansen's comments, agreeing that a review of the Sign Code was needed but adding that it should not be changed based on an individual case. He encouraged the council to review the ordinance or have the applicant reapply for a highway-oriented sign. Councilor Wooten said she supported the decision of the Board of Appeals, stating that a similar decision had been made on a request by G.I. Joes. Mr. Hansen responded that he was unsure if the applicant could change his application, explaining that the community shopping center might not fall within the Highway-Oriented Sign District language. In response to a request for clarification, Superintendent of Building Inspection Mick Nolte explained that Highway-Oriented Districts were relegated to arterial streets providing access to individual properties and had not been applied to limited access freeways except for a small section of 1-105. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to deny the appeal. Councilor Holmer felt that the present appeal merited the approval of the City Council. Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:1, Mr. Holmer voting nay. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1984 Page 9