LAWRENCE SIGN CODE BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES DRAFT
MARCH 3, 2004 - COMMENCING AT 6:30 p.m. CITY COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, FIRST FLOOR OF CITY HALL, SIXTH AND MASSACHUSETTS STREET, LAWRENCE, KANSAS
_____________________________________________________________
Members present: Hannon, Goans, Blaufuss, Santee, Emerson and Lane
Staff present: Walthall & Saker
ITEM NO. 1: MINUTES
The following changes were requested to the February 2005 minutes:
Revise motion approving the January minutes to correctly reflect abstentions
Correct typographical error on page 2
Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Mr. Lane to approve the minutes of the February 2005 meeting as revised.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 2: COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Walthall said he spoke earlier that day to the property owners of 2030 & 2040 W. 21st Street. These properties faced a unique signage situation that Mr. Walthall was prepared to describe as part of the Miscellaneous agenda.
ITEM NO. 3: EAST HILLS BUSINESS PARK DIRECTORY SIGN; EAST HILLS DRIVE AND GREENWAY CIRCLE
SV-02-02-05: 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 an informational directory sign to be located on the north side of the intersection of East Hills Drive and Greenway Circle/Greenway Drive. The informational sign is 7’-6” tall and 22 sq. ft. in area. Section 5-726.1 of the Sign Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003 is the governing regulation concerning the location of informational and directory signs. The Code provision limits the height of such sign to 4’ and restricts the area to not exceed 4 sq. ft. Submitted by Michael Schmidt with Star Sign & Graphics for DCDI, developer of East Hills Business Park.
ITEM NO. 4: EAST HILLS BUSINESS PARK MONUMENT SIGN; GREENWAY CIRCLE AND NORIA ROAD
SV-02-03-05: A request for variances 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 second monument sign to be placed in the right-of-way of Greenway Circle near the intersection of Noria Road. The sign will identify the east entrance of the business park. Section 5-739.6(A) in the Sign Code allows one monument sign not to exceed a maximum 60 square feet area and a height of 12 feet. The monument sign would be 7 feet in height and 16.5 sq. ft. in area. The variance will allow for the replacement of an existing sign with a sign to match the style of the one at the entrance to the East Hills Business Park from K-10 Highway. Submitted by Michael Schmidt with Star Sign & Graphics for DCDI, developer of East Hills Business Park.
Items 3 & 4 were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Walthall described Item 4 first, explaining the request to allow a second monument sign at the back entrance of East Hills Business Park on Noria Road. The new sign would replace the existing monument sign located on the landscaped median in the entryway.
The new sign mirrored the dimensions of a sign (at the K-10 entrance on East Hills Drive) that was granted a variance previously. The dimensions of the existing K-10 sign and the proposed Noria Road sign would be 7’ tall, 8’ wide at the base and 4.5’ wide at the top.
Mr. Walthall said the Code did not cover this situation very well, but he attempted to use an interpretation of the property as a multi-establishment use, which would be allowed 2 monument signs at separate entrances. The first sign would be allowed a maximum of 60 square feet in area and the second 40 square feet in area.
It was clarified that the new sign met the specifications for height and size on its own, but combined with the existing sign it was out of compliance without a variance.
Regarding Item 3, Mr. Walthall said the requested new directional sign also mirrored the design of the entry signs and also did not fit well into the Sign Code. The requested sign did not meet the criteria for a directional sign in terms of height or area. However, Mr. Walthall was prepared to break with precedent and make a recommendation in these cases. In Staff’s opinion, approval of both signs as requested would be in the best interest of public safety.
Some Board members agreed that signs were needed for this location.
It was established that existing directional signs to Greenway Road and Greenway Circle were located in the public right-of-way and were considered traffic signs. As such, the signs were under the approval of the City’s Traffic Engineer.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Schmidt, Star Signs & Graphics, said the applicant felt the signs were needed to assist delivery truck drivers and reduce public safety concerns.
Mr. Schmidt said the exiting monument sign in the Noria Road entryway was in disrepair and was no longer functional.
It was verified that the new monument sign was proposed with internal illumination for visibility.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Alicia Janesko agreed that the business park needed the requested signs for public safety.
Jay Stewart, Chair of the East Hills Business Park Board of Trustees, said traffic direction had been a problem since the park opened. Trucks coming in the K-10 entryway tended to stop when lost, blocking traffic and posing a safety hazard.
Mr. Stewart pointed out that the sign lettering was only 2.5” tall, and the size of the proposed signs was needed because of the number of business park tenants. He agreed with the statement that the existing Noria Road entrance sign was no longer functional and did not fit the new image of the business park.
BOARD DISCUSSION
There was general agreement among the Board members that the signs were needed for the benefit of the public safety.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 3
Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Mr. Lane to approve as presented the new directional sign at the intersection of East Hills Drive and Greenway Circle/Greenway Drive measuring 7’6” in height and 22 sq. ft. in area.
Motion carried unanimously 6-0.
Item 4
Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Mr. Lane to approve as presented a new monument sign in the landscaped median at the Noria Road entryway measuring 7’ in height and 16.5 sq. ft. in area.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 5: MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Walthall explained that the property owners at 2030 & 2040 had approached him about a portion of the northeast corner of the western building. The area was zoned PCD-2, which allows wall signs only on walls facing the public right-of-way. The subject property had no wall facing the right-of-way, so according to code tenants facing the inner part of the development were not allowed to have a sign. Mr. Walthall asked for direction from the Board in this matter.
It was established that the layout of this overall development resulted in 7 tenants facing the same problem. There was discussion about other pad sites and how other zoning districts had provisions for exceptions to the wall signage restrictions.
It was noted that some businesses had been allowed a certain amount of leeway in interpreting “facing a public right-of-way”. Best Buy, for instance, was allowed wall signs under the interpretation that it faced 31st Street, although it sat behind several pad sites.
Mr. Walthall said he was not able to predict how frequently this situation would occur in the future.
It was suggested that an access easement could be interpreted as a right-of-way equivalent.
The Board gave Staff options for returning with additional information:
The Board agreed with Staff that tonight’s discussion would be considered as advance information of an upcoming issue.
ADJOURN - 7:05 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department Office.