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

Home Browse Search

e e - Councilor Ehrman wondered whether any businesses in the past had had to pay comparable amounts to remove or change non-conforming signs. Ms. McDonald said a Valley River Center cinema had recently had to remove a very large sign and install a new one in order to meet code requirements. Councilor Bascom asked for information on the proposed Sign Code review. Susan Brody explained that Planning Department staff was responsible for the Sign Code update. Work will be proceding over the next six months. The issue will be brought before City Council in the fall of 1985. Addressing the appellant, Councilor Holmer asked whether the dealerships had depreciated their signs for tax purposes since annexation by the City in 1979. Mr. Gardner assumed they had been depreciated to some extent, but did not know precisely. He felt it would be inappropriate for the vagaries of Internal Revenue Service laws to determine the life of the signs. Responding to staff testimony, Mr. Gardner said the term "economic hardship" was defined by the code as an inability to adequately amortize the price and life of signs. He stated that his clients met this criterion. Ms. Wooten closed the discussion concerning the appeal of Kendall Ford. Ms. Wooten opened the public hearing concerning the appeal of Valley River Dodge. Allen Gardner, an attorney for Valley River Dodge, said the Sign Code Board of Appeals ruling would require the removal of the penta-star atop the sign. He said staff had indicated that the star was originally installed without the knowledge of County authorities. He explained that, to the best of his knowl- edge, the star had been there since the signls erection. It was an integral part of the sign and should be allowed to remain, as should the entire sign at its present height. Mr. Gardner said there was no need for the additional secondary signs at Valley River Dodge, since its property is much smaller than that of Kendall Ford. The dealership was requested variance for the identity sign alone. Ms. Wooten called for statements from opponents or other interested parties. Hearing none, she asked for staff comments on Valley River Dodgels request. Ms. McDonald and Mr. Sercombe indicated they had nothing to add beyond their original testimony at the Sign Code Board of Appeals hearing of May 18. Hearing no further comments from staff or councilors, and the appellant having no need for rebuttals, Ms. Wooten closed the public hearing regarding variance requests for Valley River Dodge. She opened the public hearing for Dunham 01 ds-Cadill ac. Larry Anderson, attorney for Dunham Olds-Cadillac, stated he had not spoken wlth John Franklin but had drawn up the settlement agreement which had been mailed to Mr. Franklin. Mr. Anderson stressed that the three dealershipsl signs were of non-local origin and design; their non-conforming dimensions was a matter beyond their control. He said Mr. Franklin's proposal made a lot of sense in view of this fact. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1985 Page 5