Meeting Minutes
JUNE
1, 2006 – 6:30 p.m.
_______________________________________________________________________
Members
present: Hannon, Goans, Lane, Emerson, von Tersch, Carpenter
Staff
Present: Walthall
________________________________________________________________________
ITEM NO. 1: MINUTES
One typographical error was noted.
Motioned by Hannon, seconded by Lane to approve the minutes
of the May 4, 2006 meeting as revised.
Motion
carried 5-0-1, with Carpenter abstaining due to his absence from the May
meeting.
ITEM NO. 2: COMMUNICATIONS
There were no additional communications for the Board.
ITEM NO. 3: EXPRESS
PERSONNEL SERVICES WALL SIGN;
SV-05-02-06: A request for variances from the provisions
of Chapter 5, Article 7 (Signs), of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas,
2003. The requests are for a 30 square
feet wall sign to be placed on the west side of the building; and, to allow the
wall sign to have internal illumination.
Section 5-738.3 of the Sign Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003
is the governing regulation concerning wall signs in a residential-office
district. This code provision allows a
maximum wall sign area of 10 square feet, and indicates the sign should not be
illuminated. The proposed sign is to be
located on the west wall of the building at
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Walthall introduced the item, explaining the applicant’s
request to relocate an existing sign from his business’s current location on 23rd
& Harper Streets to the new offices on 9th &
Mr. Walthall said Staff agreed with the applicant’s
statement that the internal lighting was of minimal concern, due to the high
amount of ambient lighting already in this area. He said the applicant also referenced in his
application the size of many area signs in the immediate vicinity, which the
applicant felt made the proposed 30 square foot sign fit the area. However, Staff pointed out that the existing
large signs in the area were in different zoning districts, specifically C-5 (heavy
commercial). The RS-O zoning of the
subject property was intended to serve as a buffer between the C-5 and the
existing residential area.
Mr.
Walthall said the subject property had been in use with compliant signage for
several years, and Staff was concerned that allowing the proposed sign may
create an encroachment into the residential neighborhood that would set a
pattern ‘creeping’ down Iowa Street.
Staff
recommended denial of the request, finding it did not meet the criteria for
granting a sign variance.
Attention was given to the Commerce Bank sign directly
across
Mr. Walthall responded to questioning that he was not aware
of any plans to change to the zoning of the subject property.
APPLICANT
PRESENTATION
Bob Washatka, applicant, reiterated his intent to reuse the
sign from his current business location at the new location. He presented
revised photos of the proposed sign that he said were more to scale than
pictures provided with the original application. The new photos also reflected changes to the
building (painting the wall and a different color awning) that would make the
sign less visually intrusive.
Mr. Washatka said he would like to reuse the sign because
it was only 5 years old and still had useful life. He noted that the sign would be placed to
face across the street toward the large, internally lit Commerce Bank sign, and
would have little if any visual impact on the area residences. He also showed the distance between the
proposed sign and the nearest existing home, stating that this property owner
had been contacted and expressed no objection to the proposal. It was established that this resident was
part of the family trust that owned the subject building.
The applicant said he had no intent to construct an
additional monument sign, and this would be the only identifying sign for the
business. He said the area may be
residentially zoned, but it was developed with a commercial character and this
addition would present no detriment to the area. He added that the exclusively daytime nature
of the business would fit well with the area.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The Board agreed with Staff’s assessment that granting the
variance would not be appropriate, even though the area had several examples of
signs similar and even larger than the proposed sign, on the grounds of
different zoning. They discussed the
fact that the RS-O zoning was purposefully located in this area to ensure a
buffer between commercial and residential development.
Emerson said it may be inequitable to require this business
to have a smaller sign than immediately adjacent businesses, but this was the
intent of the code. Hannon said he was
not sure he could agree with that statement.
Carpenter noted that the Board had approved a sign larger than this
proposal to the north. Emerson said he
did not “feel compelled to compound the error”.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Hannon, seconded by Lane to approve the sign as
requested.
Motion failed, 2-4, with Hannon and
Lane voting on favor. Carpenter, von
Tersch, Goans and Emerson voted in opposition.
ITEM NO. 4: MISCELLANEOUS
There
was no additional business to come before the Board.
ADJOURN - 6:55 p.m.
Official minutes are
on file in the Planning Department office.