Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Board of Appeals 1995-7-31 .' ;. . . SPRINGFIELD I DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH StREET (503) 726.3753 FAX (503) 726,3689 E')!~R[, OF APPE.~.LS NC':':CE :)F ::::CIS!OH ORDELL CaNST co APPLICANT: Mike Gillette, Pacific 9 :1otel DATE: June 13, 1995 ADDRESS: 3550 Gateway Street, Springfield, Oregon CASE NO: 95-05-103 VAR!ANCE REQUEST: Requests a varia~ce from Section 9-7-18 (2) of the Springfield Sign Code relative to the height limitation for a freestanding sign, and Section 9-7-2 relative to Flashing Sigr.B. At the Soard of Appeals' Meeting held on June 13, 1995 The Board of Appeals rendered the followi~g decision regarding the above referenced variance request: _xx APPROVED DEN!ED Fr~DING5 OF FACT: 1) ThE: sign as propc.'sed \"ill flot obstru-:;t c.:-:isting zignagc tro:n ether businesses. 2) With the approvdl of this sign, Lite applicant has agreed to remove all non-conforming siQnage on thE-! property. ~:if t!r:d: Board of.Appeals ';.: ," !l'" ,'., ..:<..' ,~,.,.' ':,;'; '!" ~.: ., .~ ..... .;.~. .... ;".,.,' , . - . ...~- .. , . . I, ~ ) CITY OF SPRINGFIELD BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Springfield City Hall Development Services Department Conference Rooms 615 & 616 Tuesday June 13, 1995 11:00 a.m_ 1. Roll Call: Present were Butch Baird, Chairperson; Jim Ingram, Orville Tharp, and Tom Miller. Ainslie Krans was absent. Staff: Dave Puent, Lisa Hopper, .secretary to the Board 2. New Business: Chairperson Baird asked the Board to declare any conflicts of int:erests prior to the hearing. No confl~cts were "noted. a' Michael Gillette, Pacific 9 Motor Inn. #95-05-103 The property i~ question is located at 3550 Gateway Street, Springfield, Oregon. The applicant requests a variance from Section 9-7-1B (2) of the Springfield Sign Code relative to the height limitation, and Section 9-7-2 relative to Flashing Signs. Dave Puent presented the staff report to the Board saying that the Board had heard a variation of this request at their October 27, 1994 and December B, 1994 Board of Appeals meetings. Mr. Puent added that in the previous meetings, the Board was in support of the electronic message center portion of the sign, but due to the location and height of the sign, the Board denied the prior requests. Mr. Puent said that following the Board's denial of Mr. Gillette's variance request, Mr. Gillette appealed the Board's decision to the City Council. The City Council upheld the Board's decision. Mr. Puent said that the sign as proposed is within the allowable square footage, and that if the Board chose to approve this request; seven existing non-conforming signs would be removed by the applicant. Mr. Puent then reviewed photographs with the Board of the signs that would be removed. Mr. Puent said that staff supports the applicants request of an elec~ronic message board center, but does not support their request of a total height of 32 feet above grade for the proposed.slgn. Mr. Puent said that the adjacent signage to the south east and the existing wall signage on Mr. Gillette's building are at approximately~25 feet from grade, and with supporting photographs, showed the Board the 'signs were visible from the northbound freeway off ramp. Chairperson Baird asked for questions from the Board. ) "---" Mr. Miller asked the applicant if the 65 foot high freeway sign would be changed during their sign upgrade of the property. He added that he felt some of the problems Mr. Gillette has had in identifying his property is because he uses different names on his signs. Mr. Gillette said that the sign copy will be changed. Mr. Gillette asked which signs would be required to be removed. Jones, representing the applicant and Martin Bros signs, stated non-conforming signage will be removed. Kevin that all Mr. Jones presented the applicants request to the Board. Mr. Jones stated that when the applicant went to the City Council to appeal the Boards denial decision, it was his opinion that the Council did not want to hear Sign Code requests, and that the Council felt that the Board of Appeals should be making all decisions relating to sign variance applications. Chairperson Baird requested the Board be provided with minutes of that meeting. Ms. Hopper said' that she would obtain and send copies to the Board as soon as possible. ..:..:) Mr. Jones said that their proposal of the 32 foot high freestanding sign was what they felt would work for everyone. With the freeway elevations approximately 12 feet above the grade of the property, they felt that 20 feet above the freeway elevation would be visible to all interested customers. Mr. Puent showed the Board the elevation map pointing out the different elevations of the on and off ramps in relation to the property. Chairperson Baird asked the applicant about their statement at a previous meeting which was they were concerned with once people got off of the freeway, finding their motel. Mr. Jones said that the electronic: message board will be used also as directional information, i.e., turn left at light. Chairperson Baird closed the public hearing and opened to Board questions . and discussion. Mr. Miller said in his op1n10n it was admirable of the applicant to go through the' Board process, then to the City Council, and back to work with Staff to prepare a new application for the Board to hear. Mr. Miller .added that staff has done an excellent job preparing the staff reports for the Board and cOlTU11ended Staff for working with the applicant. Mr. Miller. added with the condition of all of the existin~ signage being either updated or ~emoved, he is in support of the applica~ts proposal. '..:J Chairperson Baird asked Mr. Puent for his interpretation of the City Council meeting which Mr. Gillette and Mr. Jones attended when they appealed the Boards decision. Mr. Puent said the Council feels that the Sign Code is a difficult code. They felt that Board had made a good decision in their denial of the applicants request, but directed staff to work with the applicant if the applicant wished to prepare another request regarding this sign. . " . . ') Board of Appeals Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 3. , Chairperson Baird asked for verification that the City Council does not have a problem with the Board approving height variances. Mr. Puent said they do not. Mr. Tharp said that he would like to meet with staff to discuss t:he regulations of the surrounding Sign Code areas and to visit the site prior to making a decision on this request. Chairperson Baird asked staff to provide Mr. Tharps requested information to the Board at this meeting as possible. Ms. Hopper explained the 1-5 Commercial, Community Commercial, and the Mall/Sports Facility Sign Districts to the Board. Chairperson Baird said that it is helpful understanding the Sign Code and the reasons behind the limitations. He added that he agrees with the applicant on their request for a height of 32 feet for their proposed sign. He added that the property does have extenuating circumstances and although some of the property's signage problems are self imposed, but with the changes in the Gateway area, i.e., the number of new businesses, some of the problems are not self .imposed. Chairperson Baird also. agreed wit:h Mr. Miller regarding regarding the cleaning up of the existing signage on the property. Mr. Tharp moved to table the request until an on-site visit could be conducted. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Miller stated that by approving this request, it is his belief that it would not be setting a precedence for the area because each req~est would be reviewed on their own merits. He added that he is in support of' the 32 foot height request for the proposed freestanding sign. Mr. Ingram mov.ed to approve the 32 foot height request for the plCoposed freestanding sign to be located in the south east portion of the property. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Chairperson Baird asked for clarification of the motion questioning if Mr. Ingrams intent was also so include the . approval of the electronic message board. Mr. Ingram amended his motion to include the. electronic message board. Mr. Miller seconded the amendment to the motion. The motion passed 3 to 1 with Mr. Tharp voting against the motion. 3. Business from the Board: None 4. Business from the Staff: a. Schedule for Board of Aooeals Meetinos '- -Mr. Puent said that because of the number of appeals that we have been receiving, it would be helpful to know when the Board would like to meet on a monthly basis. He added that the date would be tentative, and a meeting would not be held if there were no appeals to be heard. " :; . . Board of Appeals Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 4. All members of the Board said that they like the system that is used now for setting up a meeting. They agreed that they all like to be contacted by phone to set up a meeting and would probably forget a meeting if they were not contacted. Ms. Hopper said that by scheduling one week out of the month when meetings would be tentatively held, she would have an easier time completing public hearing notices, scheduling applicants, etc. for upcoming meetings. She added that she would be happy to continue to phone each Board member regarding upcoming meetings. The Board agreed that the meetings would be held during the second week of each month, with Ms. Hopper phoning the Board members to set a specific date during that week. 5. Business from the Audience: None 6. The meeting was adjourned at 12:41 p.m. ) ',~