05/13/1985 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e - - support in denial of the requests, citing the issue of fairness to other businesses which had been denied continued use of similar non-conforming signs in the past. Ms. Wooten asked that the staff notes and minutes of the Sign Code Board of Appeals hearing of March 18, 1985 be entered into the record. She called for declarations of ex-parte contacts and conflicts of interest concerning all three appellants. Councilor Hansen remarked that the appellants were business neighbors with whom he had had business-related conversations, but that these would not prejudice his decision. Councilor Miller reported he had viewed the area around the dealerships and had spoken with the owner of Dunham 01ds- Cadillac, but that these contacts would not influence his decision. Hearing no declarations of ex-parte contacts or conflicts of interest, Ms. Wooten opened the public hearing regarding the appeal of Kendall Ford. Allen Gardner, an attorney for Kendall Ford and Valley River Dodge, presented a history of all three appellants' dealings with City staff regarding con- formity to the Sign Code. Mr. Gardner said the dealerships were annexed by the City of Eugene in 1976 and 1979, at which time there was no dispute over signs which conformed to Lane County regulations. Upon annexation, the area was designated an outlying Commercial Sign District. Requests by the dealer- ships to change the designation to a Highway-oriented District were denied by the Planning Commission and later by City Council. Mr. Gardner maintained that all other car dealerships in the city were within the Highway-oriented District, which gave them an automatic advantage over his clients in signage is~ues. On November 5, 1984, Mr. Gardner received a tele- phone call from City Attorney John Franklin, who proposed that the matter of the dealerships' non-conformity to code standards be delayed until 60 days after City Council had completed its proposed review of the code. Mr. Gardner said he was assured by Mr. Franklin that this delay was offered "without prejudice to the dealerships I rights." Mr. Gardner accepted this oral offer by phone and letter on November 7, 1984. He passed around a copy of the acceptance letter. On December 19, 1984, a call from the City Attorney's Office to Mr. Gardner repudiated the terms of the earlier agreement. Mr. Franklin confirmed this repudiation in a letter of January 17,1985. Mr. Gardner stated that City staff chose not to honor a fair agreement. The Sign Code Board of Appeals had supported the Cityls position. He asked the City Council to honor the origi- nal agreement, saying its content was quite specific and did indicate a "meeting of the minds.1I Mr. Gardner reviewed the sizes and heights of signs at Kendall Ford. The Sign Code Board of Appeals had required the dea1ershipls main sign to be lowered from 39 to 20 feet. He said Ford Motor Company had advised the dealership that the shortest pole it would allow for the present sign is 23 feet in height. Mr. Gardner said the purchase of a new sign would amount to about $40,000. Dunham 01ds-Cadi11ac has received a similar message from its central office. He indicated that the cost of changing signs would be prohibitive. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1985 Page 3