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

Home Browse Search

e - - Regarding incidental signs, maximum square footage for which has been set at 80 feet, Mr. Gardner said many of these were not visible from Goodpasture Island Road or were incidental to the lot itself. He asked that they not be included in measurements of total square footage. He reviewed the various incidental signs and the degree to which they varied from code requirements. He explained that the ten-acre lot includes several different buildings and services and said these signs were necessary to show directions and give instructions to customers. He requested that Kendall Fordls rear identity sign be allowed to stand at 39 feet, six feet above the height permitted by the Highway-oriented District. Ms. Wooten invited opponents of the appeal or other interested parties to present testimony. Hearing none. she asked staff for more information regarding Kendall Ford. Ms. McDonald said the issue was not the sign district designation of the dealership area. It was whether or not non-conforming signs should be allowed to remain. By 1973, five years after its adoption, the Sign Code had required more than 1.000 businesses to comply with its regulations. She said the code provided for fair and equal treatment and also granted enough amortization time. She said it would not be fair to other businesses, nor would it be in keeping with the law, if this appeal were granted. Ms. McDonald pointed out that several other car dealerships were outside of the Highway-oriented District, contrary to Mr. Gardnerls assertion. These include Evergreen Pontiac-Volkswagen and Central Lincoln-Mercury. Tim Sercombe of the City Attorneyls Office advised the council to decide on the merits of the Sign Code Board of Appeals decision alone. He said it was beyond the council IS competence to rule whether an agreement of a legally binding nature had existed between the dealerships and the City. Mr. Gardner conceded that a minority of dealerships were outside of the Highway-oriented District. He said other dealerships maintained a competitive advantage because their zoning designations allowed them greater signage freedom. He repeated that the cost of ordering and installing new signs would be prohibitive to all three dealerships. Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Wooten closed the public hearing. Councilor Rutan asked Ms. McDonald which signs the council could allow to remain if a variance were granted. She replied that all the signs could be allowed to stand as they presently are. Responding to questions about the issue of hardship, Building Inspector Larry Reed said hardship could be defined only within the terms of the code. Cost to business was not one of the criteria. Nor was the dealershipsl dependence on pre-manufactured signs a condition of hardship. Mr. Sercombe advised that a decision in favor of variance requests must be justified by reference to the code and its objectives. Tonightls hearing could in no way decide the appropriateness of specific zoning designations. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13. 1985 Page 4