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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Wooten closed the public hearing. ~ Mr. Miller stated that he found the signs in question tasteful and well inte- grated into the businesses. He suggested there may be more need to change the Sign Code than the signs. The City should not ignore violations of the code, but should find ways to better accommodate businesses. Mr. Rutan said these particular variance requests should be judged for their appropriateness to the Sign Code as it now stands. He pointed out that variances could be allowed under certain unique circumstances. He felt the appellants met this criterion for a number of reasons. The proximity of a four-lane highway just beyond the short frontage road is such an unusual circumstance. The area is also very close to Valley River Center, which must be considered. Lowering the signs would make many of them hard to see because of recent new developments in the area. Furthermore, the dealerships are well separated from other commercial uses which could be adversely affected by their non-conforming signs. Finally, there is little or no pedestrian traffic in the area. Mr. Rutan commended staff for supporting the Sign Code, but said there was a need to make a positive finding for variances in all three cases. A great deal of staff time and energy had already gone into this particular case and it was time to resolve the issue. - Mr. Holmer thanked staff and the Sign Code Board of Appeals for their efforts to enforce the code. He said a process to improve the code might well be necessary. He proposed deferring action for six months on the condition that the appellants halt litigation. Ms. Ehrman spoke in favor of Mr. Holmer's proposal, saying this would not imply that the City was honoring an alleged original agreement. Postponement of action would be the only prudent course while the Sign Code was under review. She added she would feel uncomfortable making a positive decision tonight because it may invite further requests for variances. Ms. Bascom called the Sign Code a living document which was in need of occa- sional review. She qualified that the code in its present form could not be ignored; however, making an immediate decision in this case would stretch the issue too far for comfort. Ms. Bascom pointed out that the code had improved Eugene's commercial landscape over the years. She hoped that a revised code would be both fairer and more effective. Mr. Hansen felt the appellants' signs were in good taste. He said they should remain, though not under the present code. He hoped that the representatives of the three dealerships would agree to delay action until November 1985. Mr. Gleason advised that it would be wiser to change the policy document rather than make an exception for the dealerships or for any other business. Whatever the amended code would require, the dealerships would have to abide by it. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1985 Page 7