Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/13/1985 Meeting (2) . . e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber--City Hall May 13, 1985 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, Richard Hansen, Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Freeman Holmer, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Emily Schue. The regular meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order by Council President Cynthia Wooten in the absence of His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. I. PUBLIC FORUM Councilor Wooten opened the public forum, inviting citizens to comment on issues not included in present or upcoming City Council agendas. Receiving no requests to speak, she closed the public forum. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Culture/Leisure Plan (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. Mary Winston, Parks and Recreation, delivered the staff report. She said preparation for the Cu1ture/ Leisure Plan was begun as a work program for the Six Point Economic Diversifi- cation Program. A 60-member citizen planning team representing culture and leisure organizations as well as the public at large volunteered over 1000 hours between January and September of 1984 to draw up the plan. The plan assumes that culture/leisure opportunities contribute to the communityls quality of life as well as its economic vitality. The three major issue areas addressed by the plan are coordination, resource development, and community image and marketing. The plan proposes a partner- ship between the public and private sectors for its implementation. The appendix includes suggested actions, background data and an inventory of culture/leisure resources in the community. Ms. Winston said the Planning Commission spent much time reviewing these resources; the commission focused on the relationship between the Culture/ Leisure Plan and the Community Goals and Policies document, the City's finan- cial role in culture and leisure events, and the nature of the proposed partnership. On April 29, 1985, City Council adopted the draft plan at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, including additions and deletions proposed by the commission during the review period. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1985 Page 1 e - - Ms. Wooten announced that the City Council had decided during its May 8, 1985 work session not to take action on the item this evening, but to wait until a well-publicized future hearing. Ms. Wooten opened the public hearing. Sally Weston, 2595 Highland Drive, spoke as chairperson of the Performing Arts Commission. Ms. Weston said the plan continued to improve during the course of its development. The plan in its present form does a good job of address- ing the concerns of the Performing Arts Commission. The plan1s policies reflect things that are already happening in the city of Eugene. She recom- mended full adoption of these policies and the continuation of work already under way. Ms. Weston added that some improvements were needed in the partnership aspect of the plan. A prime concern is how to enlist energy and dollars from people outside of City government in order to realize actions suggested in the appen- dix. She hoped that all the energy invested in these suggested actions would not be wasted by adoption of the policies alone. Carole Daly, 1609 Washington, testified in her capacity as director of the Oregon Museum Park. Ms. Daly said she had worked with the plan for 18 months and was pleased that its adoption would officially validate culture/leisure projects in the city of Eugene. Due to the high cost of several culture/ leisure projects, the partnership with private services will be very impor- tant. Joint public/private financing would make these expenses more accept- able to both sides. Ms. Daly stressed that the plan was based on consensus; many different sides had negotiated the content of each issue. She asked the City Council to carefully consider those thoughts which had made their way into the plan. Ms. Wooten closed the public hearing. She conveyed the Council IS deep appreciation to the Culture/Leisure Committee for its many hours of work and promised detailed consideration of the plan. B. Appointment to National Council on Public Works Ms. Wooten congratulated Councilor Holmer on his recent appointment to the National Council on Public Works. C. Appeals of Sign Code Board of Appeals Decisions Mr. Gleason introduced the item. Sign Code Inspector Barbara McDonald delivered the staff report on appeals initiated by Kendall Ford, Dunham Olds-Cadillac and Valley River Dodge. On May 18, 1985, the Eugene Sign Code Board of Appeals denied variance requests presented by all three dealerships for continued use of non-conforming signs. The properties are located within the outlying Commercial Sign District; regulations are defined in Section 8.640 of the Sign Code. Under Section 8.800, City Council may accept, reject or modify the actions of the board. Ms. McDonald requested the council IS MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1985 Page 2 e - - support in denial of the requests, citing the issue of fairness to other businesses which had been denied continued use of similar non-conforming signs in the past. Ms. Wooten asked that the staff notes and minutes of the Sign Code Board of Appeals hearing of March 18, 1985 be entered into the record. She called for declarations of ex-parte contacts and conflicts of interest concerning all three appellants. Councilor Hansen remarked that the appellants were business neighbors with whom he had had business-related conversations, but that these would not prejudice his decision. Councilor Miller reported he had viewed the area around the dealerships and had spoken with the owner of Dunham 01ds- Cadillac, but that these contacts would not influence his decision. Hearing no declarations of ex-parte contacts or conflicts of interest, Ms. Wooten opened the public hearing regarding the appeal of Kendall Ford. Allen Gardner, an attorney for Kendall Ford and Valley River Dodge, presented a history of all three appellants' dealings with City staff regarding con- formity to the Sign Code. Mr. Gardner said the dealerships were annexed by the City of Eugene in 1976 and 1979, at which time there was no dispute over signs which conformed to Lane County regulations. Upon annexation, the area was designated an outlying Commercial Sign District. Requests by the dealer- ships to change the designation to a Highway-oriented District were denied by the Planning Commission and later by City Council. Mr. Gardner maintained that all other car dealerships in the city were within the Highway-oriented District, which gave them an automatic advantage over his clients in signage is~ues. On November 5, 1984, Mr. Gardner received a tele- phone call from City Attorney John Franklin, who proposed that the matter of the dealerships' non-conformity to code standards be delayed until 60 days after City Council had completed its proposed review of the code. Mr. Gardner said he was assured by Mr. Franklin that this delay was offered "without prejudice to the dealerships I rights." Mr. Gardner accepted this oral offer by phone and letter on November 7, 1984. He passed around a copy of the acceptance letter. On December 19, 1984, a call from the City Attorney's Office to Mr. Gardner repudiated the terms of the earlier agreement. Mr. Franklin confirmed this repudiation in a letter of January 17,1985. Mr. Gardner stated that City staff chose not to honor a fair agreement. The Sign Code Board of Appeals had supported the Cityls position. He asked the City Council to honor the origi- nal agreement, saying its content was quite specific and did indicate a "meeting of the minds.1I Mr. Gardner reviewed the sizes and heights of signs at Kendall Ford. The Sign Code Board of Appeals had required the dea1ershipls main sign to be lowered from 39 to 20 feet. He said Ford Motor Company had advised the dealership that the shortest pole it would allow for the present sign is 23 feet in height. Mr. Gardner said the purchase of a new sign would amount to about $40,000. Dunham 01ds-Cadi11ac has received a similar message from its central office. He indicated that the cost of changing signs would be prohibitive. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1985 Page 3 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 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 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 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 e Mr. Sercombe repeated that the appe11antsl consent was necessary for such an arrangement. Mr. Rutan proposed dropping the definite time limit in order to let the appellants correct their signs through normal processes. Mr. Sercombe explained that they could withdraw their appeal if the new code were more liberal than the old one; if it were as strict, they could present a new appeal. -- Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to postpone action on variance requests for Kendall Ford, Valley River Dodge, and Dunham Olds-Cadillac to November 25, 1985, at which point a new date can be set if the Sign Code revision is not completed. Councilor Ehrman asked if the attorneys for the three dealerships were in agreement wi th the moti on. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gardner answered "Yes" and agreed to hold litigation. They also asked to be notified of any public hearings regarding the Sign Code revision. Councilor Wooten emphasized the integrity of the code and declared that the dealerships' case was a unique one. She expressed appreciation to the Sign Coard Board of Appeals for upholding the code. Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:1, with Councilors Wooten, Hansen, Bascom, Ehrman, Holmer, and Miller voting aye; Councilor Rutan voting nay. Ms. Wooten reconvened the meeting at 9:30 p.m. after a five-minute recess. D. Code Amendment Concerning Mobile Homes on Individual Lots in Residential Districts (CA 85-3) Mr. Gleason introduced the topic. Gary Chenkin of the Planning Department gave the staff report. He said the Planning Commission's original plan was to allow mobile homes as an Ilin-fil1 situation" in established neighborhoods. After considerable deliberation, the commission decided this would not be timely at this point. However, it was felt there should be some provision for mobile homes mixed with conventional single-family homes in newly established areas. Mr. Chenkin named the criteria designed to ensure that such development takes places in new areas: 1) The parcel must be vacant at the time of initiation; 2) It must be rezoned to a mobile home category, so that a public hearing process is launched; 3) The parcel must be at least three acres in size; and 4) The newly developing area must be contiguous on at least half of its boundary to developments of not more than two dwelling units per acre. Mr. Chenkin said such areas would obviously be located on the city's peripheries. The "three acres" criterion reflects the code provision that mobile-home subdivisions must be located on a minimum three-acre parcel. Though the latter are not mixed developments, the Planning Commission felt the impact would be similar and thus recommended the same minimum area. A staff memorandum of May 8, 1985, lists development requirements in more detail. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1985 Page 8 e e - Mr. Miller wondered if a market analysis had been done to determine the poten- tial demand for this kind of subdivision. Ms. Brody said no such analysis had taken place; an analysis at this point would show little more than an economically-depressed market. There have been no specific comments from developers. She said there are currently four mobile-home subdivisions within the city, all of which contain some vacant lots. Ms. Wooten opened the public hearing. Dorothy Anderson, Planning Commission Chairperson, offered background informa- tion on the proposed code amendment. She said urban placement of mobile homes had been a problem for some years. Legislative pressure had been brought to bear on many communities to provide alternative, lower-cost housing. The Planning Commission decided to experiment with newly developing areas, since many people were rightly or wrongly concerned that mobile homes in established neighborhoods could depress property values. She said people buying into these areas would know in advance that they were settling into a mixed area. Such an advantage would be absent in already established neigh- borhoods. Hearing no further requests to testify, Ms. Wooten closed the public hearing. Mr. Hansen commended Ms. Anderson for her work in keeping the City Council abreast of Planning Commission activities. Ms. Bascom expressed support for the ordinance, saying it would provide for needed flexibility in housing choices. Mr. Miller felt it was a misdirected ordinance, since talks with developers had convinced him that mobile homes often bring down the price of neighboring "stick-built" houses. On the other hand, such developments might be appropriate in limited areas. He hoped that a review clause and criteria for monitoring could be attached to the ordinance. Ms. Wooten said she looked somewhat askance at the ordinance but urged its approval in good faith as an experiment. She agreed that a review date should be attached, and recommended January 1, 1988. She asked staff to provide information to council on a pro-active basis, especially regarding dense developments of this kind in a particular part of the city. CB 2823--An ordinance concerning mobile home regulations; amending Section 9.268, 9.384, 9.386, 9.902, and 9.806 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:1, with Councilors Wooten, Hansen, Bascom, Ehrman, Holmer, and Rutan voting aye; Councilor Miller voting nay. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1985 Page 9 e e .- ~ -"'":'-:;:;; The bill was declared passed and became Ordinance No. 19325. Ms. Wooten adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. R~~_ Michea1 D. Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Walter Al1mand) 1761C MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1985 Page 1 0 f' - M E M 0 RAN DUM May 9, 1985 TO: FROM: SUBJ: Eugene City Council Planning and Parks and Recreation Departments CULTURE/LEISURE PLAN The Culture/Leisure Plan draft is scheduled for a public hearing with the City Council Monday, May 13. Based on discussion at a Council work session on May 8, the Council is not expected to take action immediately following the hearing. During the Planning Commission's review of the Culture/Leisure Plan the major issues addressed included: 1) the relationship of the Culture/Leisure Plan to the Community Goal s and Pol icies document; 2) the city. s financial role in culture and leisure; 3) the role of city departments; and 4) the role of the proposed Culture/Leisure Team. Plan Highliohts e The plan assumes that culture and leisure opportunities contribute to the community's quality of life as well as its economic vitality. The three major issue areas addressed by the plan include: 1) coordination; 2) resource development; and 3) community image and marketing. The Introduction to the plan summarizes these issues. The planls policies reflect these issue areas beginning on page II-I. The plan recommends that the city work in cooperation with other public and private organizations to implement the Plan. It suggests that a Cul ture/Lei sure Team be formed to enhance communi cat i on among the vari ous groups to coordinate culture/leisure activities, and to effectively market Eugene as a cul ture/l ei sure center. Di scuss i on of the ci ty IS ro 1 e in the Culture/Leisure Team begins on page III-3. The Appendix includes suggested actions, background data, and an inventory of culture/leisure resources. The Planning Process In 1981, the City Council adopte.d the Eugene Six-Point Economic Diversi- fication Program to improve the economic welfare of Eugene citizens. The program recognized the significant impact that culture and lei.sure activities can have on the long-term stability of the community's economy as well as the quality of life. ~ On December 15, 1983, work began on the Culture/Leisure Plan with a citizen roundtab 1 e 1 uncheon, 11184 and Beyond: Setting the Stage for Arts, Sports, and Leisure.1I At the event, discussion focussed on culture and leisure opportunities through economic diversification. As a result of the luncheon, approximately 60 citizens volunteered to serve on the Culture/Leisure Planning Team to prepare a draft Culture/Leisure Plan. These citizens represented many of the organizations involved in culture and leisure activities in the community and the public at large. '-"'" In October, 1984 a draft of the Culture/Leisure Plan prepared by the Planning e Team was presented to the publ ic at an information session and to over 20 boards, commission, and committees with interests in culture and leisure activities. On November 7, 1984 the Eugene Planning Commission held a public hearing on the October draft Culture/Leisure Plan. At a work session held November 19, 1984 the Planning Commission agreed to establish a special task team to revise the October draft Culture/Leisure Plan in order to address concerns raised by the public, staff, and commission members. Members of the task team included two Planning Commissioners, two members of the Culture/Leisure Planning Team, and a member of the Performing Arts Commission. On March 20, 1985 the Culture/Lei sure Task Team forwarded the March draft Culture/Leisure Plan to the pfanning Commission. The task team also forwarded a recommendation to the Planning Commission that a resolution be adopted by the City Council authorizing the establishment of a publici private partnership to help implement the Culture/Leisure Plan. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the March draft Culture/Leisure Plan on April 2, 1985. On April 29, 1985 the Planning Commission recom-mended that the City Council adopt the March draft Culture/Leisure Plan with specific additions and deletions based on the Commission1s deliberations and the public test i mony presented. The Pl anni ng Commi ss i on I s recommended changes to the March draft are incorporated in the April draft Culture/Leisure Plan. pltbclm2 - e e e e M E M 0 RAN 0 U M May 6, 1985 TO: Mike Gleason FROM: Building Division Staff SUBJECT: Appeals of Decision of Sign Code Board of Appeals At their meeting of March 18, 1985, the Eugene Sign Code Board of Appeals denied the variance requests of Kendall Ford, Inc., Dunham Olds-Cadillac and Valley River Dodge, for relief from Section 8.640 of the Eugene Sign Code. The Kendall Ford variance included a request to permit continued use of a second free-standing identity sign on the subject property, which has only one street frontage; a request to permit continued use of free-standing signs with excessive height above grade; and continued use of incidental signs on the property which exceed the maximum surface area allowed. The Sign Code Board of Appeals determined no hardship had been established, based on the criteria outlined in Section 8.800 of the Eugene Sign Code, to warrant relief from the specified code sections; the variances were therefore denied. In addition, Dunham Olds-Cadillac and Valley River Dodge requested variances to permit continued use of non-conforming free-standing signs exceeding the maximum height allowed under Section 8.640(a)4 of the Eugene Sign Code. Again the Board determined a hardship had not been established, based on the cri- teria outlined in Section 8.800, and denied the variance requests. These decisions of the Sign Code Board of Appeals have been appealed to the City Council for action. Section 8.808 of the Eugene Sign Code states, lithe Council may accept, reject or modify the action of the Board Qr may vary the provisions of this code in the same manner and upon the same conditions as the Council grants other var- iances where it finds that strict application of one or more provisions to existing properties would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships with regard to any signs, sign structure or sign locationll. ~, " M E M 0 RAN 0 U M e May 8, 1985 TO: FROM: SUBJ: Mayor and City Council Planning Department MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (CA 85-3) On February 25, 1985, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the zoning regulations be revised to allow new mobile homes on individual lots in newly developing residential areas if they meet all 15 standards listed later in this memorandum. You are scheduled to discuss this item at a May 8, 1985, work session and conduct a public hearing to consider the the Commission1s recommendation on May 13, 1985. Existing Code language permits: (1) mobile home parks in low density residential zones with conditional use permit approval; and (2) mobile home subdivisions on three or more acre development sites as an outright use. This amendment would add a third option, a mix of mobile homes and conventionally- built dwellings. However, to ensure that this option is primarily applicable to newly developing areas, as opposed to established residential neighborhoods, the development site would first have to be rezoned by adding an /MH Mobile Home subdistrict zoning designation to the residential zone parent district. In order to qualify for the /MH subdistrict, normal zone change findings would have to be made and the development site would have to be: e 1. Vacant, 2. At least three acres, and 3. Contiguous on at least half its boundary to parcels that average no more than two dwelling units per gross acre (includes streets). Subsequent to rezoning, the development site could be subdivided and mobile homes would be permitted if they meet all the following criteria: 1. Minimum lot size: 4,500 square feet (same as for conventional units.) 2. Roof materials: Composition shingle, wood shake, or other non- reflective materials allowed by the State Structural Specialty Code. 3. Roof pitch: A three foot rise for every twelve feet across. 4. Minimum size and dimensions: Double-wide, 24 by 40 feet; 960 square feet of floor area. 5. 'Wheels, axles, hitches, and travel lights would have to be removed. 6. The area under the mobile home would have to be excavated and a permanent foundation or retaining structure installed. The area around and under the mobile home would have to be adequately drained. The mobile home could be no more than 18 inches above the average surrounding grade. e 7. Mobile home and accessory building foundations and retaining structures would have to be of sufficient strength to support the required live- e e e ..~. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. 13. loads and actual dead-loads imposed by the mobile home and any attached or supported structure based on accepted engineering standards. Foundations, tie-downs, and other supports would have to be able to withstand the specified horizontal, up-lift and overturning wind forces on the mobile home and any attached or supported structures based on accepted engineering design standards. The space between the mobil e home and ground 1 eve 1 woul d have to be completely enclosed with a perimeter enclosure, except as required for venti~cition. It would have to be compatible with the mobile home1s exterior siding. Rain gutters, in harmony with the roof and siding, would be required. The home would have to be new at the time of installation. Siding would have to be non-reflective, and textured or wood-stained. A minimum nine by twelve foot accessory storage building or garage, with siding and design that matches the mobile home, would have to be placed on the lot. Parking would be the same as is now required for single family dwellings, two per unit. 14. Each home would have to possess an insignia showing that it was manufactured according to the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Code. 15. Each home woul d have to camp ly wi th all app 1 i cab 1 e 1 oca 1, state, and federal regulations in effect at the time of installation. If you have any questions, please call Gary ChenKin in the planning department at 687-5481. Provided under separate cover: Proposed Ordinance Planning Commission minutes (3 meetings) plgcmhl 4985 2