Memorandum

City of Lawrence

 

TO:

 

City Manager Mike Wildgen

FROM:

 

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager

CC:

 

Linda Finger, Victor Torres, Lynne Zollner, Barry Walthall, Sheila Stogsdill

Date:

 

September 30, 2004

RE:

 

Proposal from GleeVision – Projection Advertisements

 

 

Background

 

Michael Gleason has been in contact with City staff concerning a proposal to allow for his company to install and operate projecting advertisements on private structures within Lawrence.  This is a relatively new concept and is not allowed by City land use laws or the City’s sign code. Mr. Gleason’s information which is attached provides an explanation of this projecting advertisement concept.  Essentially, Mr. Gleason obtains the permission of a property owner to locate a projection machine on the property.  Mr. Gleason also obtains the permission of the property owner (perhaps a different property owner) to allow for the projection, via a light source at night, of advertisement(s).  The advertisements may or may not be for the actual premise.

 

Policy Issues

 

1)     Zoning Code. Our City land use laws do not provide for this actual use or accessory use of the property. Staff recommends that if this is an allowed accessory use, the Zoning Code should be amended to reflect this use. A major policy issue will be whether this concept detracts from other City land use goals e.g. landscaping, building design standards, etc.

 

2)      Sign Code Issues.  Staff has identified four major sign code concerns with this concept.

 

A.     This proposed signage is not specifically allowed.  Staff recommends that if this concept is pursued that the Sign Code be amended to reflect this concept. Provisions governing projection size, avoiding “hazard-creating” projections, timing of projections, also appear appropriate.

 

B.     Generally, most commercial buildings already have signage pursuant to the Sign Code.  Staff recommends that if this concept is allowed that existing signage limitations on buildings not be altered and that the projection size for signage be included within the square footage calculations for particular buildings.  In other words, the square footage of the projection signage shall be counted against any existing signage of a particular building.  If a particular building has the maximum square footage of signage, projection signage would not be allowed.

 

C.     Another major Sign Code concern for this concept is that City laws currently limit off-premises signage (e.g. billboards) to current locations. (Off-premises signage refers to signage which does not concern the particular premises or business.) This video projection concept would provide for off-premises signage.  If City signage laws are amended to allow for this off-premises signage, other off-premises signage would also have to be allowed within the community.  

 

D.     A fourth Sign Code concern deals with the orientation of the building wall.  Our Sign Code provides that only walls facing a public way, or in some cases walls with sufficient space between the wall and an adjacent property/building, are allowed signage.  If video projection is allowed on walls that do not meet this requirement, this portion of the Sign Code would also need to be amended.

 

Additional Opportunities for Input

 

This item has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission or Historic Resources Commission for land use and historic review concerns.  Additionally, the Sign Code Board of Appeals has not commented on this proposal.  Staff is not aware of this concept in sign codes in other communities.

 

Commission Direction

 

Mr. Gleason has been advised that if his proposal is to proceed within Lawrence, City Commission direction to amend City laws is required. Options for the City Commission include directing further research, requesting review from appropriate City boards, or not further pursuing the issue.