It seems the University has a penchant for getting caught up in controversy regarding oversized signs.
Last year, the Athletic Department hung an $18,000, three-story-tall “O” on the south side of Autzen Stadium for ESPN GameDay coverage of a Duck football pre-game. That spring, Eugene resident and University professor McKay Sohlberg complained to city officials that the “O” is an eyesore that ruins the view from her Fairmount Hill home.
It turns out, the sign is eight times larger than city zoning rules allow, and the University didn’t apply for a building permit before putting it up, nor for any sort of exception to city code that would allow doing so.
After Sohlberg’s and other complaints, the city gave the University the option of taking the sign down or applying for an exception to the city code and getting a building permit, as well as paying double permit fees as a penalty for not applying in the first place. In March, the Eugene planning director ruled the sign merits an exception to the code and therefore could stay up. But Sohlberg filed an appeal, and a hearing is scheduled for May 13.
There’s nothing inherently wrong or surprising about the University hanging a giant “O” on its already-giant football stadium, especially considering the strong branding presence the University has established in recent years. While some Eugene residents might not appreciate being able to see the sign from their homes, others support the sign and take pride in the University’s branding efforts. Like it or not, the University is a significant part of the Eugene community – one that provides thousands of jobs and countless dollars in revenue for the city.
However, the fact remains that the sign violates city code. As such, the University should either follow the necessary process to have it approved or take it down.
University President Dave Frohnmayer told The Register-Guard he doesn’t know why the University didn’t apply for permits, and that because Autzen is University property, he doesn’t think anybody gave it a second thought.
One would hope Frohnmayer and the administration would see the necessity in giving thought to obeying laws and following city code.
There is another oversized “O” adorning Autzen, this one on the west-facing side of the stadium’s scoreboard. Eugene city officials approved this sign in 2002, and it was built without major controversy, according to the city’s land use management supervisor. If the University already went through the necessary steps to construct one sign, how can the code violation of putting up another one have gone unnoticed?
The University claims it is entitled to a variance, which would allow the sign to stay up, because Autzen is too big to be regulated the same as other buildings and is “unique from property in the same vicinity,” according to documents submitted to the city.
This is not the brand the University should strive to promote. As one Register-Guard commenter put it, “This sort of ‘might-makes-right’ attitude leaves the bad impression that UO sports does indeed build character – the worst kind.” The University should not be exempt from city regulations because of its size; on the contrary, institutions of heightened prominence and visibility have an extra responsibility to their community to adhere to transparent and legal policy decisions.
Whether or not this issue merits such publicity or discussion, there is no question it is of vital importance that a public institution such as the University be held to the same standards as individual citizens and smaller organizations. If the sign is of such importance, the University should apply for an exception to the code, get a building permit, and agree to pay double permit fees as a penalty for not applying from the outset. If it cannot, the sign should be taken down. No good will come of another expensive and public debate over a sign.
[email protected]