SIGN CODE BOARD OF APPEALS

Meeting Minutes

June 2, 2005 – 6:30 p.m.

_______________________________________________________________________

Members present:  Blaufuss, Emerson, Goans, Herndon, Santee, Hannon and Lane

Staff present: Walthall and Saker

_______________________________________________________________________

 

ITEM NO. 1:                          MINUTES  

Several typographical errors were noted in the May minutes.  One substantive change was requested on page 3.

 

Motioned by Hannon, seconded by Lane to approve the minutes of the May 5, 2005 meeting as revised.

          Motion carried unanimously, 7-0. 

         

ITEM NO. 2:              COMMUNICATIONS

There were no additional communications for the Board.

 

Swearing in of witnesses

 

SCBA Meeting 06/02/05

ITEM NO. 3:              CONSIDER AMENDING SECTION 5-733(D) OF SIGN CODE FOR CITY OF LAWRENCE, KANSAS

 

SV-05-10-05:  Consider a request from Barry Walthall, City of Lawrence Codes Enforcement Manager, for an amendment to Section 5-733(D) of the Sign Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003.  The wording for the proposed amendment is in the underlined text that follows:

 

5-733(D)       Duration of Permits.  No more than one permit for a temporary sign shall be authorized per year for erection and maintenance of such signs for any business commercial establishment, multi-shop commercial area, or industrial development.  No temporary sign permit shall be authorized for a period exceeding thirty (30) days.  No temporary sign permit shall be authorized for a total number of individual days exceeding thirty (30) days. 

 

The amendment of this code provision has been suggested by Mr. John Wysocki, President of ARTful Marketing LLC.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Walthall explained the proposed amendment was requested by a member of the public to allow for multiple temporary sign permits at a single location in a year, with the stipulation that the total number of days for the permit(s) would not exceed 30 days.

 

Mr. Walthall said this change would create some additional work for Staff, but he was not strongly in favor of or opposed to the proposal.

 

The Board discussed situations in which a temporary sign had been needed for more than 30 days, referencing the request from Henry T’s on 6th Street for a sign that was in place for about 5 months.  It was suggested that the Board dealt appropriately with that case by granting a variance to allow that sign to remain for more than 30 days.

 

Mr. Walthall expressed concern that the request for multiple temporary signs was a frequent occurrence, and that the Board would be overrun with variance requests if this (granting variances similar to Henry T’s) were made a common practice.  He spoke about how the amendment would relate to new businesses that requested a “Coming Soon” sign then asked for a “Grand Opening” or “Specials” sign later in the same year.

 

It was noted that the Board had struggled to define the special circumstances of the Henry T’s sign (substantial completion of the 6th Street improvements) and suggested that it would be difficult to craft language for a Sign Code amendment that would deal with each individual situation.

 

It was verified that the Board was asked to forward a recommendation on the proposed amendment to the City Commission.  It was discussed that this request was made in response to one applicant’s special circumstances, but similar instances were not uncommon and adopting an amendment of this nature would eliminate the need for a variance in each case.

 

It was again clarified that the intent of the proposed amendment was to allow multiple temporary signs in a single location over the course of a year, but the signs could not be in place for a total of more than 30 days.  Staff would be responsible for tracking the total number of days and would issue a permit for each of the multiple temporary signs.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

John Wysocki, co-creator of the proposed amendment, explained his intent of holding a series of art fairs at the Visitor’s Center over the summer months.  The proposed amendment was meant to allow the periodic placement of a temporary sign announcing the art fair.  The aggregate number of days would be no more than 30, but these days would not be continuous as required in the current Sign Code language.  

 

Mr. Wysocki said his proposal would allow the removal of the art fair sign when it was not needed, which was in keeping with the stated intent of the Sign Code to prevent “needless clutter”.

 

It was noted that the proposed sign would be located on City property. This meant the applicant would have to get a sign permit and the City, acting as landlord, would have to give permission for the placement of the sign.   

 

It was pointed out that it would be nearly September before the proposed amendment could be adopted and implemented, even if the entire process went smoothly.

 

 

 

 

Michael Braa, partner to Mr. Wysocki, referenced the signs for the Farmer’s market, which were allowed by special permission though the City Commission and did include some permanent signs.  He said the Farmer’s Market was not a non-profit business when it began but was granted permission for its signage as allowed by the Sign Code for an event of community interest.

 

Mr. Braa said the art fair proposal might evolve in the same way as the Farmer’s Market.  It was proposed as a nice attraction for Lawrence that, if viable, may springboard into a non-profit business.

 

BOARD DISCUSSION

The Board expressed no opposition to the art fair signs being discussed, but had concerns that amending the Sign Code as proposed would “open the door” for future misuse of the Code.

 

There was discussion about the Sign Code provision that allowed the City Commission to grant permission for civic interest signs.  Mr. Walthall said this provision was typically reserved for signs in the public right-of-way.

 

There was also discussion about granting a permit for a permanent sign.  The Code did not prevent a permanent sign from being removed and replaced periodically, as long as the sign was always identical in appearance, size and location.  The City, as landlord could invalidate the permanent sign permit in the future if deemed necessary.  It was stated that this would be quicker, less complicated and would not open the door for future problems with other sign requests.

 

Mr. Walthall responded to questioning that the permanent sign option was hindered by the Code requirements regarding sign material, size and mounting.  Banners and staked signs are not allowed as permanent signs.  A ground mounted sign would be subject to size and location restrictions that would reduce visibility.  A wall-mounted sign might be an option, but Staff was not sure this would meet the art fair’s needs.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Herndon to forward the proposed amendment to the City Commission with a request that the City consider permitting the placement of community interest signs for a period to be established with ARTfair Marketing representatives.

 

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

It was suggested that it was unnecessarily complicated to forward the proposed amendment as motioned and it would be simpler to deny the amendment and recommend the art fair representatives work with Staff on other alternatives.  Goans volunteered to take part in these proceedings if needed.

 

It was suggested that a variance could be granted for the art fair signs changing the text “a period” to “multiple periods”.  It was countered that variances generally ran with the land, not the business.  A time limit could be set for the mentioned variance, but this would require the art fair representatives to return with a new request each time the variance ran out.

 

It was commented again that the City Commission was permitted to approve any sign stipulating the business, the location and the dates of placement.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Herndon withdrew the motion on the floor.

 

Motioned by Herndon, seconded by Hannon to deny the text amendment to the City of Lawrence Sign Code as proposed.

          Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.

 

DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION

Mr. Wysocki and Mr. Braa were encouraged to work with Staff to seek other mechanisms for getting sign placement permission. 

 

ITEM NO. 4:                          MISCELLANEOUS  

 

a)                 Consider any other business to come before the Board.

 

There was no additional business to come before the Board.

 

ADJOURN   - 7:05

 

Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.