LAWRENCE SIGN CODE BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
MARCH 4, 2004 - COMMENCING AT 6:30 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. Santee, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Herndon, Mr. Goans, Mr. Hannon and Mr. Fizell
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Guntert, Mr. Walthall and Ms. Saker
ITEM NO. 1: MINUTES
The following changes were requested to the minutes of the January 8, 2004 meeting:
· Change header to reflect correct date
· Replace Mr. Henderson with Mr. Herndon among those present
Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Mr. Santee to approve the minutes of the January 8, 2004 meeting.
Motion carried 4-0-2, with Mr. Hicks and Mr. Goans abstaining due to their absence from the January meeting.
ITEM NO. 2: COMMUNICATIONS
Swearing in of witnesses
ITEM NO. 3: GEORGIA CARPET OUTLET; 3000 IOWA STREET
SV-02-01-04: A request for variances from the provisions of Chapter 5, Article 7 (Signs), of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. The first request is to allow modifications to be made to the existing pole sign, which include raising the sign to the top of the poles and covering the lower portion of the poles with an aluminum skirt. These changes will increase the height of the sign to 22’ with 85 sq. ft. of sign area. Section 5-739.6(A) of the Code allows a maximum sign height of 12’ and area of 60 sq. ft., which can be increased to a height of 16’ and an area of 72 sq. ft. provided the sign is located 10’ from the property line (right-of-way line). The second variance is to allow the relocation of an existing sign to the south wall of the building, which does not face upon a public right-of-way, nor does it have a parking lot or other open space of at least 50 lineal feet between the wall and the nearest building as required in Section 5-740.3(A) of the Sign Code. Submitted by Michael Schmidt with Luminous Neon for Georgia Carpet Outlet, Jerry Jennings, owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Walthall introduced the Item, showing photographs of the existing pole sign and the proposed design related to the first variance request. He explained that, as of 1995, existing pole signs could only be modified if they did not change from their existing location or size. Significant changes required removal of the pole sign and replacement with a monument sign that met the current Sign Code.
In Staff’s opinion, the changes proposed would turn the pole sign into a monument sign. However, the sign would exceed the maximum allowable height (12’) and square footage (60 square feet), with a height of 22’ and area of 88 square feet.
It was discussed whether this should be considered a skirted pole sign or a tall monument sign, both of which were prohibited by Code.
There was discussion about how sign area was measured and why the section of sign with the street address was not counted as part of that area.
A second variance was requested to allow relocation of the existing south wall sign to a location on the south elevation that would be visible to passing traffic. This location did not face a public right-of-way or parking area.
Mr. Walthall explained the original location for the second wall sign had been permitted by Code because there was 50’ between the wall and the property line. New construction on the property adjacent to the south now hid the sign on the south wall from passing traffic. The applicant now requested to relocate the south wall sign to a visible section of the southern wall that was not 50’ from the property line.
A variance was granted in 1999 to allow for a third wall sign on the west elevation.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Michael Schmidt, Luminous Neon, spoke on behalf of the applicant, showing more photographs to clarify the placement and design of the two signs being proposed.
The applicant wished to raise the pole sign existing cabinet, with a revised face, to the top of the existing poles to avoid cutting the poles. The skirt was proposed to make the sign more closely resemble a monument sign that was now the Code norm and to improve the look of the sign.
It was shown that the existing pole sign had once held an additional cabinet at the top pf the poles, in the location proposed for relocating the existing cabinet. This upper sign had been removed when a smaller business had taken over the business space and did not want the financial responsibility of this signage.
Mr. Schmidt responded to questioning that he considered this a pole sign because of its height and size. It was again noted that the pole sign could be grandfathered if no significant changes were made. Pole signs were also required to maintain a minimum clearance of 8’ between the ground and the bottom of the sign.
There was discussion about whether the clearance should be measured from the bottom of the sign or the bottom of the proposed skirting, with the point made that the skirting inherently made this a monument sign instead of a pole sign.
The Board discussed the purpose of the additional wording on the skirting, establishing the words were a national advertising slogan.
Mr. Schmidt explained the applicant would like to retain the full height of the existing poles for possible future use.
It was clarified that the neon “OPEN” section of the sign would be lit only during business hours.
Mr. Walthall responded to questioning that it was possible the existing cabinet could be raised to the top of the existing poles under the grandfather clause, as long as the property was not site planned. However, further research would be needed before Staff could give an official opinion.
It was noted that this area contained a lot of visual clutter, with many pole signs for competing businesses all along south Iowa Street. It was suggested that many of the more intrusive signs were owned by older businesses making the most of the grandfather clause, while most newer businesses were complying with the current Code requirements.
It was established that the Board was not responsible for reviewing the verbal content of this type of sign.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Bud Jennings, property owner, described the history of the property and the existing sign. He explained again the request to “redecorate” the existing pole sign and move the southern wall sign to a visible location. He noted that, although the new wall sign location would be only 30’ from the property line, it would face the adjacent property’s parking lot.
Jerry Jennings, also a property owner, mentioned that the monument sign on the adjacent property was within Code massing and height requirements but posed a serious traffic hazard. This sign was presented a visual obstruction for traffic because of its location 2’ from the curb line.
Mr. Jerry Jennings also discussed the history of the existing pole sign and the removal of the upper cabinet. He reiterated their intent to update and modernize their sign to compete with nearby businesses, noting particularly the location of Home Depot.
It was suggested the 10’ setback from the curb (8’ from the property line) would prevent the proposed skirted sign from creating another visual block for traffic.
BOARD DISCUSSION
It was suggested the Board must decide whether this was a tall monument sign or an entirely new concept in pole signs and whether they wanted to allow either one.
There was concern that this would set a precedent for the other pole signs along south Iowa and the suggestion that this was not the intent of the new Code or the grandfather provision.
It was discussed that, under the old Code, this pole sign was allowed an area greater than 60 square feet under certain provisions. This had resulted in an original sign of 66 square feet. Under the new Code, the new sign could match but not exceed that 66 square feet.
Design alternatives were discussed with the applicant, including moving the new sign to the top of the existing poles but with no skirting or moving the skirting along with the sign to the top of the existing poles, leaving an 8’ clearance underneath.
The applicant said including the wording shown on the skirting was not absolutely necessary.
It was suggested the Board could allow additional square footage for the pole sign in the amount that was lost with the removal of the sign that had once been located above the subject sign.
The Board discussed the intent to the new sign Code to reduce visual clutter and over-massing of signage. They understood need for competitive visibility but expressed continued concern about the precedent this would set for other grandfathered pole signs.
Staff responded to questioning that it would be appropriate for the Board to take action, even if they chose to use the grandfather clause to allow the existing sign to move to the top of the existing poles without skirting.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Goans, seconded by Mr. Hannon to allow a sign of the same square footage as the existing sign to be moved to the top of the existing poles at a maximum height of 22’ and to allow westward relocation of the existing signage on the southern elevation to a visible area, although that area would be less than 50’ from the property line.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Clarifying language was discussed and agreed upon regarding the skirting, the size of the new pole sign and the neon OPEN sign.
ACTION TAKEN
The revised motion on the floor was to allow modification to the existing pole and wall signs as follows:
· An internally illuminated sign matching the existing dimensions may be moved to the top of the existing poles at a maximum height of 22’;
· A neon OPEN sign may be located between the existing poles, attached to the lower edge of the logo sign, lit only during hours of operation;
· No skirting may be added to the pole sign;
· Square facades may be added to the existing poles for a modern appearance; and
· The existing southern wall sign may be moved westward to a visible location on the southern wall at a less than 50’ distance from the face to the property line.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 4: HENRY T’s BAR & GRILL; 3520 WEST 6TH STREET
SV-02-02-04: 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 temporary sign hanging on the south wall of the building to remain in place for the duration of construction work along W. 6th Street at the intersection of W. 6th Street and Kasold Drive. Section 5-733(D) in the Sign Code allows a temporary sign to remain for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days. Submitted by Sean Gerrity, owner of Henry T’s Bar & Grill, with the approval of Jim Baggett and Dr. Marguerite Ermeling, DVM, property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Walthall introduced the Item, which was a request to allow existing temporary signage on the south elevation to remain in place until construction related to the improvements at 6th Street and Kasold Drive was complete.
Mr. Walthall responded to questioning that this was not simply an extension of the previous temporary sign permit. He explained that one (1) temporary sign was permitted per calendar year per site, for a period of 30 days.
A temporary sign had been issued in October 2003 and had expired. A new permit issued in early 2004 was now about to expire as well.
It was verified that the proposed temporary sign was similar to the one currently in place and the situation had not changed since that sign was permitted.
The applicant had no additional comments.
No member of the public spoke on this item.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The Board discussed and ultimately agreed that it was adequate to state the sign should be removed when construction at 6th Street & Kasold Drive was “substantially complete.
Motioned by Mr. Hicks, seconded by Mr. Hannon to approve extension of the temporary sign permit granted for 3520 W. 6th Street until the 6th Street roadwork contract was substantially complete.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 5: MISCELLANEOUS
There were no additional issues before the Board.
ADJOURN - 7:55 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department Office.