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

Home Browse Search

e - - Mr. Anderson distributed copies of the signs which he said were available to his client in the event that the old sign must be removed. He estimated it would cost the dealership $40,000 to purchase and install a new identity sign. He proposed lowering the old sign to a height of 37 feet, at a cost of $7,500. He agreed with Mr. Gardner that "a deal is a deal" and said his client would be forced to pursue a lawsuit if the City did not recognize the validity of the agreement made with Mr. Franklin. Mr. Anderson said Dunham Olds included three different businesses on its lot; the amount of signage there was therefore not unreasonable. Speaking for his client, he asked the councilors what they would do if a new business came to town which employed 58 people but had a sign 37 feet high. Ms. Wooten asked for comments from opponents or other interested persons. Hearing none, she asked for staff presentations. Ms. McDonald and Mr. Sercombe declined comment. She opened the floor to questions from councilors of staff. Mr. Miller asked whether it would be possible to postpone a decision until the review of the Sign Code had been completed. Mr. Sercombe replied that it would be possible; however, without the appellantsl consent, State statutes required that a decision be reached within 60 days. He advised inquiring what effect this postponement would have on the appellants' possible litigation. Mr. Gleason said it would also be possible for the council to uphold the board1s decision and still review the code. The appellants would have to comply with code regulations in the meantime. If they did not comply, the City would bring litigation seeking to enforce the code. Mr. Hansen inquired whether the council could support the boardls findings but delay action on the appellants I signs for eight months, with the opportunity to review the decision at the end of that period. Mr. Sercombe said "Yes";. the decision to enforce the code lay with the City Manager, who would likely take heed of the City Council IS wishes in the matter. In response to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Ms. McDonald confirmed that the 37-foot sign proposed by Mr. Anderson for Dunham Olds would still be 17 feet above the maximum specified by the Sign Code. Mr. Sercombe explained to Mr. Holmer the nature of the litigation being con- sidered by the appellants. He said the issue was breach of contract; however, no notice had been served and the litigation appeared to be in abeyance pending the City.s next step. Ms. Bascom remarked that none of the four signs available to Dunham Olds appeared to be acceptable under the Sign Code. They were all too high. Mr. Sercombe pOinted out that the code does not recognize the practical difficulty related to dependence on nationally-made signs with fixed dimen- sions. What the national company wants its branches to do in regard to signs is considered irrelevant to the issue. Mr. Anderson gave the consent of Dunham 01ds should the council propose delayed action on the signs. He said this would be far preferable to tearing down the signs tomorrow. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1985 Page 6