12/14/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

allow other incidental signing. Mr. Obie asked what the ability is of the council to extend the amortization period. Mr. Swanson responded that it would e require amending the ordinance. Mr. Gardner stated that the estimated value of all three large signs is $90,000. Mr. Haws stated that he previously served on the Sign Code Board of Appeals. It would be most unfair to the hundreds of people who have complied with the requirements and taken their signs down since the ordinance was adopted if this request were approved. If people are driving 40 miles per hour there, they are going too fast. He feels sorry for the applicant, but feels that it would be unjust to others if this exception were allowed. Mr. Lindberg agreed that this is a policy question. The signs are not causing blight. Council is talking about a series of auto dealerships and a County-maintained road. Two of the three businesses do not come up for amortization until 1984. He asked if a temporary variance could be provided to table Eugene Dodge's situation until 1984, when perhaps a different economic climate would be in existence. Perhaps by then, it will be determined whether or not this will be a highway. Mr. Obie added that the Planning Commission dealt with the same problems. They acknow- ledged confusion and said that it might be appropriate to change the ordinance. Perhaps neither designation is appropriate. The Outlying Commercial designation allowed individual signing for various businesses. The applicant has shown the appropriateness of the present identification. Extension of the amortization would give the council time to deal with the code revision and changes in circumstances. Otherwise, he feels this should be changed to Highway Oriented designation, since this would require removal of $90,000 worth of signs. e Ms. Wooten asked Mr. Gardner if he is trying to prevent the cost of sign removal, or if they feel that the existing signs could be increased with a new designation. Mr. Gardner stated that incidental signs would be cut back to very small ones, and many would have to be eliminated. They have big signs out front. Kendall Ford's sign is within the Highway Oriented District size, but would have to be shortened. The other signs would all have to be modified, but there would be some savings. Their primary purpose is to correct the wrong designation. Ms. Wooten asked Mr. Croteau about the secondary signing permitted with the existing designation. She also asked what would occur with the multiple businesses if it were Highway Oriented Designation. Mr. Croteau clarified the code requirements. Mr. Swanson stated that in Section 4 of the Sign Code, the total surface areas for signs are stated. Ms. Wooten agreed with Mr. Lindberg that it is a policy question. Ms. Miller added that the amortization period was to allow conditions to be corrected. Annexations will continue. Traffic speed cannot be beyond the consideration. If a street starts out with sparse traffic at high speeds, that can change the sign designation to a lower designation. This is more like Centennial Boulevard. It is not a Highway Oriented District either. She agrees with Mr. Haws that it is a policy question, and it is fair to continue with existing policies until policies are changed. Decisions should not be made on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Schue indicated agreement with Ms. Miller. However, she is bothered because other spots in town seem very similar and have the Highway Oriented designation. For example, Hannum Datsun faces Centennial Boulevard. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 14, 1981 Page 12