SIGN CODE BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
April 7, 2005 – 7:15 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Members present: Hannon, Herndon, Emerson, Blaufuss, Goans and Lane
Staff present: Pinnick and Saker
______________________________________________________________________
ITEM NO. 1: COMMUNICATIONS
· There were no other communications before the Board.
· No ex parte communications were disclosed and no abstentions were indicated.
· There were no deferral requests to consider.
ITEM NO. 2: MINUTES
Several typographical errors were noted.
Motioned by Blaufuss, seconded by Hannon to approve the March 3, 2005 minutes as revised.
Motion carried 5-0-1, with Herndon abstaining due to his absence from the March meeting.
ITEM NO. 3: FIRST STATE BANK & TRUST MONUMENT SIGN;
3901 WEST 6TH STREET
SV-03-04-05: 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 double-faced monument sign to be located along the north side of the property facing traffic along W. 6th Street. The monument sign is proposed to be 12’ tall, 7’ wide and have a sign area of 55 square feet. Section 5-738.3(B) of the Sign Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003 is the governing regulation concerning the permitted size of a monument sign in the RO (Residence-Office) District. This code provision allows a maximum sign area of 16 square feet and sign height of 4’. Submitted by Tammy Moody with Luminous Neon, Inc., for First State Bank & Trust, the property owner of record.
Mr. Pinnick introduced the request to allow the replacement of the existing monument sign with a 12’ tall (including base and sign) monument sign. The RO zoning of the subject property required a variance for a monument sign of this height.
It was noted that the subject property represented the only RO zoning in the area, which was developed mainly with commercial uses that had signs similar in size to the one requested. RS-2 zoning was present to the west and south, but Herndon explained why he thought this would not remain the case. These homes were restricted to 6th Street access, and he thought it likely that they would redevelop with other (commercial) uses as the land appreciated in value.
Herndon also pointed out that the RS-2 land to the south held a non-residential use, a day care allowed as a conditional use.
David Hooper, bank manager, explained the bank had hired a signage consultant to evaluate the site’s existing signage. The proposed new monument sign was designed to address the main points of the consultant’s review.
The primary problem of the bank’s existing signage was visibility, since the City chose to place a new bus stop enclosure blocking the existing sign from view from the west. The new sign was proposed at a central location to create better visibility to the east and west along 6th Street, while blocking the sign’s view from nearby residential development.
Tammy Moody, Luminous Neon, responded to questioning that the proposed sign would conform to the height and size restrictions for commercial and PCD zoning.
No member of the public spoke on this item.
It was suggested that the Board was setting a more frequent precedent of allowing variances from the restrictive sign regulations carried by RO zoning. Emerson expressed concern that there might be a tendency to think these variances were not significant because they “represented the continued effort to commercialize this area”. He asked if the Board should be concerned about this area being over-commercialized and try to protect the restrictions of the RO zoning district.
It was discussed whether the illumination from the sign would encroach into the residential areas and whether it would be a significant increase to the light already created by existing signs.
It was established that the existing sign had been designed based on RO sign restrictions and was “very small”, 16 square feet and 4’ tall with a landscaped base for emphasis. The City’s choice to locate a bus stop next to the sign made it less effective, and it was not likely that the bank itself was the driving force behind the bus stop placement.
It was suggested that RO zoning was chosen to restrict the kinds of uses that could be placed on the subject property, in consideration of the RS-2 zoning to the west and south. It was discussed whether it was unfair to hold this allowable use to signage that could not compete with the signs of surrounding commercial uses.
Motioned by Lane, seconded by Blaufuss to approve a 12’ tall monument sign for First State Bank & Trust, 3901 W. 6th Street, to replace the existing monument sign in a new location as requested.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 4: FIRST STATE BANK & TRUST WALL SIGN; 3901 WEST 6TH STREET
SV-03-05-05: 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 set of cast letters identifying the name of the bank to be located on the north wall of the building. The total sign area of the letters is 8.6 square feet. Section 5-738.3(B) of the Sign Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003 is the governing regulation concerning the permitted size of a wall sign in the RO (Residence-Office) District. This code provision allows a maximum sign area of 2 square feet if there is a monument sign on the property. Submitted by Tammy Moody with Luminous Neon, Inc., for First State Bank & Trust, the property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Pinnick explained the request for a wall sign 8.6 square feet in area. The existing monument sign (previously approved for replacement [SV-03-04-05]) reduced the allowable wall signage to 2 square feet.
Tammy Moody, Luminous Neon, spoke on behalf of the applicant, showing a rendition of the proposed sign in its proposed location. She noted that, without the monument sign, the wall sign would be permitted in RO zoning with 10 square feet.
Ms. Moody referenced the signage consultant’s review mentioned in the discussion of SV-03-04-05, saying one of the primary points of that review was a lack of identification on the building.
No member of the public spoke on this item.
The Board had no additional questions or concerns.
Motioned by Hannon, seconded by Lane to approve the placement of a wall sign measuring 8.6 square feet in area for First State Bank & Trust, 3901 W. 6th Street as requested.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 5: 2000 & 2040 WEST 31ST STREET
SV-03-06-05: 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 total of six (6) wall signs to be placed on each building address on the building sides that do not face a public right-of-way. Section 5-739.2(D)(2) of the Sign Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003 is the governing regulation concerning the placement of wall signs in the PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District. This code provision allows wall signage only on the wall facing onto a public right-of-way. Submitted by Bryan Dyche with Klover Architects, Inc., for Broadway Plaza II Lawrence, LLC, the property owner of record.
Mr. Pinnick explained the request to allow the placement on two buildings of wall signs on elevations that do not face a public right-of-way. He showed how business sites were provided on these elevations because of the location and orientation of the overall buildings. Mr. Pinnick explained that other zoning district contained provisions for similar situations, but the PCD zoning district did not.
It was verified that the wall signs did not require size variances, for they would be within the square footage restrictions set according to the wall area.
Bryan Dyche, Klover Architects, provided further explanation about how site conditions dictated the placement of small business sites on the interior of the site. It was difficult to lease the interior business spaces because they were not, according to the PCD sign restrictions, allowed to have any identifying signage.
No member of the public spoke on this item.
It was recalled that this situation was discussed in March. The Board had directed Staff to bring the case forward as a formal application and/or to develop proposed language for Sign Code text amendment to deal with what was expected to become a more common problem. It was suggested at that time that the PCD restrictions should be modified to contain the same provisions as other zoning districts.
The proposed text amendment was on tonight’s agenda as a Miscellaneous Item. However, even if the Board chose to support the new language, it would take several weeks to get a text amendment adopted and implemented. It was suggested that a variance be considered for this applicant tonight to allow them to proceed.
It was clarified that the proposed language stated that signs would be allowed on no more than two walls per establishment. Based on the official definition, each of the business sites counted as an “establishment” and was allowed signs on two walls of the overall building.
It was further clarified that the proposed language did not restrict how many signs a single establishment could have on a single wall, provided the signs were within the square footage restrictions set according to the total area of the wall. There was discussion about adding a restriction to the number of signs a single establishment could have on one wall, but noted that this did not conform to the sign restrictions of other zoning districts.
It was established that the applicant would prefer approval of a variance stating that each business was allowed a sign, rather than stating a specific number of signs that would be permitted. It was suggested that the defined term “establishment” be used instead of “business”.
Staff verified that approval of the variance as requested met the intent of the new language proposed later on the agenda, and that the new language conformed to the restrictions of other zoning districts.
Herndon expressed concern about the significant increase in signage for this area, but said signs were an obvious and understandable necessity for any business. He noted the plan showed two signs on the western elevation for the largest establishment in building B and said he would prefer that only one sign per elevation were used. Herndon said he had been considering language for the proposed text amendment stating that each establishment could have only one sign per elevation, but he did not want to go to that length. He felt it would be inappropriate to place such a restriction specifically on this application.
The Board discussed how to word a motion to clearly convey their intent.
Motioned by Herndon, seconded by Lane to approve a variance to allow the placement of wall signs for each establishment on the building sides that do not face a public right-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
1. In no case shall the square footage exceed what is allowable by code.
2. Signs are allowed on a maximum of two (2) walls for each establishment.
Motion carried unanimously 6-0.
ITEM NO. 6: CROWN TOYOTA; 3400 IOWA STREET
SV-03-07-05: A request for a code interpretation and the alternative application for a variance from the provisions of Chapter 5, Article 7 (Signs), of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. The interpretation request is for a determination of whether an illuminated wall meets the definition of a sign as defined in Sections 5-702.1(I) and 5-702.1(P) of the Sign Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. If the illuminated wall is determined to be a sign, then the applicant is seeking a variance to have more wall signage on the front of the Crown Toyota building than is permitted by Section 5-739.2(D)(3) of the Sign Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. Said section of the city code permits a maximum of 450 square feet of signage. The applicant is seeking the variance to have a maximum of approximately 884 square feet. The location of the proposed signs is on the west side of the building facing the Iowa Street right-of-way. The signs are for Crown Toyota located at 3400 Iowa Street. Submitted by Myles Schnaer, owner of Crown Toyota.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Pinnick explained the property known generally as the old Payless Cashways building was being remodeled into Crown Toyota. Staff had determined that the entire building frontage was to be used in calculating the amount of permitted wall signage. A complication arose in that the applicant proposed the construction of an internally lit portal leading to the business interior. This portal would, in turn, hold logos and other signage as shown on the plan.
It was the determination of Staff that the entire portal should be considered as one large sign, similar to an internally lit monument sign that held the names of multiple businesses. Computed in this manner, the portal far exceeded the allowable square footage for wall signage.
Mr. Pinnick said that, if the portal were not illuminated and therefore did not draw attention, it would be considered a wall and insignia and other lettering would be considered and computed as separate signs. In that case, the logos, etc. (both on the portal and at other locations on the building frontage) would be within the square footage allowance and would not require a variance.
It was verified that other signs had been approved for the business, including 4 monument signs in various locations, so this application did not represent the only signage the business would have.
Mr. Pinnick responded to questioning that the decision to consider the lit portal as a sign was based on the City’s tendency to be conservative about signage. It was up to the Board to decide if an alternate interpretation of the Code was appropriate, determining the lit portal to be an architectural feature, not a sign.
John Hampton apologized for appearing before the Board again, because he had stated at previous meetings that no additional variances would be needed for this site. He said the site was still under construction and it was not known before that this element would be part of the building. Furthermore, the logo and other text on the portal was within the sign restrictions for this zoning district and applicant had not believed a variance would be needed when applications were made for these signs.
Mr. Hampton said the pictures shown were of the Toyota location in Topeka and the shown portal was very similar to but not exactly like the one proposed here in Lawrence. He said Tammy Moody of Luminous Neon was present and able to testify that the same portal design was interpreted as building feature holding separate signage at the Topeka location, not a single large sign. Hampton said he understood the Topeka decision had little impact on the Lawrence Board’s decision, but provided this fact for their information.
Mr. Hampton said the Toyota logo would be lit separately from the portal itself. The “Crown” text would be unlit. He said four other sign applications were in process that would be within Code if the Board determined that the portal was not a sign.
Mr. Hampton said the portal should not be considered a sign any more than a large picture window with stenciled text. He also provided the example of a large wall, lit entirely with external lighting directed at the wall and not interpreted by the Code as a sign. He showed examples of internal and external lighting existing at current Lawrence businesses. These included Best Buy, Home Depot, Hollywood Theatres and - most similar in appearance to this application - Old Navy.
Mr. Hampton said no one questioned the portal was an integral part of the structure itself. He said Toyota was requiring this structural element, roofed and steel supported, as part of their building design nationwide.
Mr. Hampton said he did not think it was possible to support Staff’s interpretation of the portal as sign. However, if the Board chose to support that interpretation, the applicant asked for a variance to allow the portal and other signage as proposed.
Jay Zimmerscheid, BG Consultants, showed a rendition of the building frontage and the visual impact of the portal as seen from Iowa Street. He noted that the building was 440’ from the street and the light from the portal would reach no further than 50’ from the building.
Mr. Hampton added that the lit portal was an important safety feature, providing security for employees leaving the site late at night in this relatively isolated area at the edge of town.
No member of the public spoke on this item.
It was suggested that the applicant’s testimony about portal as an architectural element was convincing, particularly the visual comparison of the proposed portal with existing businesses that showed this feature was not as unique as might be supposed.
Motioned by Hannon, seconded by Lane to make an interpretation that the portal is an architectural feature and should not be included in the calculation of allowable square footage for wall signage.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 7: MISCELLANEOUS
a) Consider a request from Barry Walthall, City of Lawrence Codes Enforcement Manager, for an amendment to Section 5-739.2(D)(2) of the Sign Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. The wording for the proposed amendment is in the underlined text that follows:
5-739.2(D)(2) Wall signs are permitted for each wall which faces or fronts onto a public right-of-way and such sign is attached to the corresponding wall, except that no wall sign shall be permitted upon any wall other than the front wall which faces or fronts onto a public right-of-way which such public right-of-way is bounded on the opposite side by properly zoned single-family dwellings. All establishments may construct wall signs as permitted in C-1, C-2, M-1, PCD-1, PCD-2 and PID zoning districts on building walls which do not face or front an adjoining and abutting public right-of-way, when there exists under the same ownership a parking lot or other open space of at least fifty (50) lineal feet between the wall and the nearest building, but in no case shall signs be constructed on more than two (2) walls of a building for each establishment.
See discussion of SV-03-06-05 comments related to this issue.
As discussed during consideration of SV-03-06-05, Staff was directed in March to develop language for an amendment to bring the sign restrictions for PCD zoning into conformance with those for other zoning districts, adding a provision to allow signage for businesses that do not face the public right-of-way.
The proposed language had been reviewed and found appropriate by Staff and the City’s Legal Department. Staff recommended the Board support the language as presented and request the City Commission approve this text as an amendment to the Sign Code.
There were concerns expressed about the number of walls a single establishment could use for signage. It was pointed out that, if additional signs were needed, a variance application could be submitted. It was suggested that revising the text to match that of other zoning districts was advisable.
Motioned by Goans, seconded by Hannon to forward the language as proposed by Staff to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval as a Text Amendment to the City of Lawrence Sign Code. The motion was amended to state that Chairman Goans represent the Board’s recommendation before the City Commission.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
b) Consider any other business to come before the Board.
The Board expressed their understanding of Staff’s time constraints and workload, but asked if at all possible, packet information is provided earlier.
ADJOURN - 8:55 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.