LAWRENCE SIGN CODE BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
MAY 6, 2004 - COMMENCING AT 6:35 P.M. PRIOR TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING, CITY COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, FIRST FLOOR, CITY HALL, SIXTH AND MASSACHUSETTS STREET, LAWRENCE, KANSAS
_____________________________________________________________________
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Goans, Mr. Santee, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Fizell, Mr. Herndon and Mr. Lane
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Walthall and Ms. Saker
ITEM NO. 1: MINUTES
One typographical change was requested to the minutes of the April 1, 2004 meeting.
Motioned by Mr. Fizell, seconded by Mr. Hicks to approve the minutes of the April 2004 meeting as revised.
Motion carried unanimously 6-0.
ITEM NO. 2: COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were noted:
· Revised agenda changing name of the company representing the applicant in Item 3 from Luminous Neon to Star Signs.
No Items were requested for deferral and no abstentions were indicated.
Swearing in of witnesses
ITEM NO. 3: LMH SOUTH DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; 3500 CLINTON PLACE
SV-04-04-04: A request for a variance from the provisions of Chapter 5, Article 7 (Signs), of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. The request is to allow an additional non-illuminated wall sign on the north wall of a building located at 3500 Clinton Place, which has more than the allowed wall signage permitted by City Code. Section 5-738.3 in the Sign Code establishes the rules for wall signs in an RO (Residence-Office) District. Said code provision allows one wall sign with an area not to exceed 10 square feet. The proposed sign will read “A Service of Lawrence Memorial Hospital” and have an area of 10 sq. ft. Submitted by Michael Schmidt with Star Signs & Graphics, Inc. for Gene Meyer, Administrator, Lawrence Memorial Hospital.
Mr. Walthall introduced the Item, explaining the applicant’s request for an additional wall sign on the north elevation. The wording of the proposed sign (“A Service of Lawrence Memorial Hospital”) had at one time been part of the existing signage, but had been replaced with alternate wording (“Diagnostic Imaging”) in 1994 when the City Commission approved a number of variances for the property.
The applicant now asked for a variance to allow addition of the original “A Service of…” wording to the existing sign, keeping the “Diagnostic Imaging” and the LMH South logo sign.
The subject property currently had a monument sign, so Code allowed a wall sign of 2 square feet in size. The proposed additional signage would add 10 square feet in area to the existing signage that was already significantly larger than the allowable 2 square feet (allowed through the 1994 variances)
Mr. Walthall responded to questioning that he understood the applicant had indicated an intent when the “A Service of…” signage was removed that they would want this wording replaced at some time in the future. It was communicated to the applicant at that time that a new variance would be needed to make this addition.
Mike Schmidt, Star Signs & Graphics, said the proposed sign was in place for about 4 years before being removed to accommodate placement – per the 1994 variance – of the “Diagnostic Imaging” sign. The applicant felt the “Service of…” wording was needed to communicate to the public that this was a division of the primary hospital and did not provide the full range of hospital services.
It was noted that original schematic showed lighting as part of the proposed signage. Mr. Schmidt said lighting was not part of the current application.
Concern was expressed that, if this variance were granted, other hospital satellite locations would come forward requesting similar signage. Mr. Schmidt responded that he did not think that was intended but he could not say “for sure”.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Barb King, director Lawrence Memorial Hospital (LMH) South, repeated the proposed sign was needed to let the public know this was not the “real hospital” or an emergency room. The entire building was dedicated to outpatient services, but it was not uncommon for individual to mistake the facility for an emergency services location.
It was suggested that alternate wording, such as “Outpatient Services Only”, would better convey the applicant’s desired meaning. Ms. King explained one department in the building was specifically named Outpatient Services, and the applicant did not want to create the image that this was the only service available in the building. She added that the proposed wording was commonly used in other cites for similar intent.
BOARD DISCUSSION
It was questioned whether the number of people confusing this location with a full-fledged hospital had increased since the original “Service of...” language was removed.
The issue was discussed in relation to traffic, discussing whether the speed of traffic at this node made additional signage suitable and if the additional wording would clarify or clutter the existing signage on the northern elevation.
It was noted that the subject area had a significant amount of landscaping, which would “hide” the northern elevation. It was then discussed if this would suitably reduce the impact of additional signage or make such signage somewhat superfluous.
Some members stated an inclination to allow the sign on the basis that this was a valuable service provided at a busy intersection and it was not a “frivolous” request to clarify these services for the benefit of the public.
Others, while agreeing this was a valuable service and the request was not unreasonable, were concerned that approval would set a precedent for future businesses in the area, as well as the other satellite hospital locations all around the city. There was additional concern about adding to the signage clutter of the surrounding area.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Santee,
seconded by Mr. Lane to approve the variance as requested for additional wall
signage on the northern elevation at 3500 Clinton Place.
Motion failed to carry, 3-3, with Mr. Santee, Mr. Lane and Mr. Herndon voting in favor and Mr. Fizell, Mr. Goans and Mr. Hicks voting in opposition.
ITEM NO. 4: DOUGLAS COUNTY BANK; NE CORNER W. 6TH STREET & FOLKS ROAD
SV-04-05-04: A request for a variance from the provisions of Chapter 5, Article 7 (Signs), of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. The request is to allow a ground mounted monument sign with 24 sq. ft. of surface area and a height of 8 ˝’ to be placed along the property frontage along W. 6th Street. Section 5-738.3(B) of the Code allows one monument sign to be placed on a property with a minimum area of 1 acre, restricts the surface area to no greater than 16 sq. ft., and a height not to exceed 4 feet. Submitted by Luminous Neon, Inc. for Douglas County Bank, owner of record.
Mr. Walthall introduced the Item, a request for a ground monument sign that exceeds the maximum allowable area and height. The Code allows a monument sign 16 square feet in area and 4 feet in height and the applicant requests a sign measuring 24 square feet in area and 8.5 feet high.
Mr. Walthall explained the applicant’s original request was for sign 12 feet in height, based on the sign sizes allowed in the nearby commercially zoned areas, although the subject area was zoned RO-1B. He described the various zoning districts surrounding the subject area and the types of signage allowed in each.
Examples of signs in the area similar to the one requested were noted at Dillon’s, Hy-Vee and Applebee’s.
It was suggested that the City had intentionally used varied zoning, including even A (Agricultural), in this area to control development along 6th Street, attempting to hold the density and intensity of 6th Street to a specific. While this intent more directly impacted building types and uses, signage was indirectly affected as well.
Jane Heismann, Gould Evans, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Heismann presented a map showing the various zonings in the vicinity to explain why they applicant felt the proposed sign was suited to the area. She also noted the location of the subject property next to a street with high volumes and speeds of traffic.
It was noted that the original submission had involved a significantly larger sign, similar to those seen at other Douglas County Bank locations. This proposal had been scaled back per discussion with Mr. Walthall. Ms. Heismann pointed out that other banks in the area had been permitted larger signs as part of a Planned Commercial Development (PCD).
Ms. Heismann agreed it was possible the City had attempted to control development along 6th Street with varied zoning, but she still believed this size of signage was appropriate in an area with this amount and type of traffic.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Pat Slaybaugh, Executive Vice-President of Douglas County Bank, explained the bank’s need for signage, saying several individuals had mistakenly entered the bank when looking for other facilities (the adjacent church or other area banks). The amount of signage allowed by Code was, in her opinion, not sufficient along this trafficway.
Ted Haggard, President of Douglas County Bank, said the bank had made an effort to create an aesthetically pleasing structure, and that the proposed signage would be consistent with this image while providing adequate visibility.
Mr. Haggard noted the subject area was situated on the corner of two major streets, saying the original intent had been for a diagonally-placed sign to front both 6th Street and Folks Road. This concept had been abandoned in favor of a sign that only faced 6th Street.
It was verified that no lighting was intended for the proposed sign.
It was noted that two directional ground signs were already in place as permitted, and the only “sign” on any building elevation was a discreet carving of the bank’s logo into the stone of the wall face.
BOARD DISCUSSION
It was suggested that the City’s intent for a less commercially-developed area along this leg of 6th Street had evolved into a different development concept and that the Board should consider their history of granting variances in this area. It was countered that the City continued to pursue their original vision of 6th Street, evidenced by the effort to develop nodal plans and restrict strip commercial development.
It was discussed that this request involved a sign less than ˝ the size of signs held by other banks in the area, although it was noted that these other banks were included in PCD’s.
It was established that the restriction of one monument sign was related to the business, not the street frontage, so the applicant could not place another monument sign on Folks Road without being approved for another variance. This was true even for properties within PCD’s.
If the property were zoned commercially, it would be allowed a monument sign 12 feet high and 60 square feet in area.
It was noted that the transportation Master Plan indicated 6th Street would be widened in the future.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Fizell, seconded by Mr. Goans to approve the variance to allow placement of a ground monument sign measuring 8˝ feet in height and 24 square feet in surface area, subject to the following condition:
DICUSSION ON THE MOTION
Chairman Herndon said he did not disagree with the spirit of the motion, but noted any additional monument sign would require the property owner to return before the Board for a new variance. He was concerned adding the proposed condition would unnecessarily restrict future considerations.
Mr. Fizell replied that the condition was meant to communicate to this Board’s intent to future Boards in the event such a request was made.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the variance to allow placement of a ground monument sign measuring 8˝ feet in height and 24 square feet in surface area, subject to the following condition:
Motion failed to carry, 3-3, with Mr. Fizell, Mr. Goans and Mr. Hicks voting in favor and Mr. Herndon, Mr. Santee and Mr. Lane voting in opposition.
Motioned by Mr. Santee, seconded by Mr. Herndon to approve the variance as requested and with no conditions.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was discussed that the new motion was intended to support the variance without additional complications of the previously-proposed condition. It was suggested that the circumstances behind a future variance request were beyond the vision of the current Board, and interfering with a future decisions in this manner was inappropriate.
It was stated that this Board had a history of granting variances “incrementally”, allowing ultimately undesirable elements through piecemeal acceptance. It was with this in mind that the condition had been proposed - to communicate for future considerations that this particular element 9additional monument signs) was not intended. It was understood that this would not preclude the applicant from making such a request in the future, or future Boards from overturning the condition with future actions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the variance as requested and with no conditions.
Motion carried 4-2, with Mr. Santee, Mr. Herndon, Mr. Lane and Mr. Hicks voting in favor and Mr. Fizell and Mr. Goans voting in opposition.
ITEM NO. 5: MISCELLANEOUS
There was no other business to come before the Board.
ADJOURN - 7:30 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department Office.