HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Board of Appeals 1994-12-8
.
.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
3550
6),d-c'w ~I
Springfield City Hall
Development Services Department
Conference Rooms 615 & 616
Thursday
December B, 19,94
11:30 8_m_
1. Roll Call: Present were Butch Baird, Chairperson; Jim Ingram, and Tom
Miller.
Ainslie Krans and Orville Tharp were absent. .
Staff:
Dave Puent, Lisa Hopper, Secretary to the Board
2. New Business:
Chairperson Baird asked for a motion to
27, 1994 Board of Appeals meeting. Tom
the motion was seconded by Jim Ingram.
approve the minutes of the October
Miller moved to approve the minutes,
The motion passed unanimously.
Chairperson Baird asked the Board to declare any conflicts of interests
prior to the hearing. No conflicts were noted.
a_ Pacific 9 Motel. #94-10-101
The property is located at 3550 Gateway Street, Springfield, Oregon. The
applicant requested a variance from Section 9-7-8 (5) of the Springfield
Sign Code relative to Prohibited signs, more specifically, rotating or
Flashing Signs.
Lisa Hopper presented the staff report to the Board saying that Staff
supports the electronic message board portion of this request but cannot
support the additional request of a variance to erect the sign on the roof
of the existing structure which would make the total height of the sign
approximately 35 feet above grade. She stated that when the Sign Code was
adopted into the City Code from the Development Code, a number of public
hearings were conducted by the City Council and the Council did understand,
and take into consideration, the uniqueness of the Gateway/I-5 area.
Because of this understanding, this area was given their own sign district
which is more lenient for the number, size, and height of signs than any
other sign district in the City.
Ms. Hopper also said that an inspection of the site was conducted by staff,
and in staff's opinion there are no significant unusual conditions that
would warrant approval for additional height of the applicants secondary
sign. Staffs inspection also revealed that the motel structure and existing
structure is quite visible from the freeway and the adjacent interchanges.
Staff suggested that the applicant review their current signage and consider
options to more clearly identify the business, i.e., use the same business
name on their freeway sign as they use to identify the business on the
building.
Kevin Jones, Martin Bros Signs representing the owner of the Pacific 9
Motel, also reviewed their request with the Board and stating that in their
opinion, the request meets all necessary criteria for the approval of this
variance request. Mr. Jones said that this lot has no Gateway Street
.
.
Board of Appeals
December B, 1994
Minutes
Page 2.
frontage and is a type of a panhandle lot. The lot location and
configuration does not allow for identification of the motel on Gateway
Street. He also said that the freeway interchange is located approximately
20 feet above the average grade of their property. If they were to erect a
sign at the 20 foot limitation, it would be even with the road surface. Mr.
Jones also said that in 1982 the Building Board of Appeals granted the
Pacific 9 Motel an off premise sign because they felt the location of the
property did constitute a physical hardship to the business. Mr. Jones
added that in their opinion, the approval of the variance requests would not
have any adverse affect on the neighboring properties because all
surrounding properties are commercially zoned.
Mr. Jones explained that the electronic message board is used for a number
of important messages, not only for businesses, but also by the State
Highway Department.
Mr. Jones also said that the applicant has agreed to remove all
nonconforming signs if this variance request fa approved.
Mike Gillette, owner of the Pacific 9 Motel, presented the Board and Staff
with copies of the minutes from the January 7, 1982 Board of Appea.ls meeting
which states approval for the off premise sign. Mr. Gillette also stated
that he does not feel that the different names on his signs hinder his
prospective customers from finding his business.
Chairperson Baird asked Staff if they choose to add information to their
presentation. Dave Puent said that it seems as though this applicant has
created their own unusual conditions and that the motel adjacent to the
Pacific 9 Motel is at the same elevation as they are. Mr. Puent also stated
that the motel structure and the signs are quite visible from the freeway
and Belt Line. Mr. Puent added that the findings of the 1982 Board of
Appeals meeting is not relevant to this request. He also said that he is
not familiar with past Sign Code requirements from 1982.
Chairperson Baird asked the Board if they had any questions of Staff or the
applicant. Tom Miller asked who owns the 65' freeway sign. Mr. Gillette
stated that he owns the sign. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Gillette what the height
of the building was. Mr. Gillette said the height of the building is 35
feet. Mr. Jones said that the building is approximately 30 feet in total
height.
Mr. Miller said that the property does have unusual conditions in relation
to the grade of the property and the freeway interchanges, but said that the
developer and owner of the business knew the location of the freeway and the
site of the motel in relation to Gateway Street prior to the purchase and
construction of the motel. The freeway height or the location of Gateway
Street has not changed. Mr. Miller felt that if this request wan approved,
it would set a precedent for neighboring properties starting a never
.
.
Board of Appeals
Oecember 8, 1994
Minutes
Page 3.
ending request for variances from the Sign Code. Mr. Miller said that ~e
agrees with Staff that the motel property and structure are quite visible
from the freeway, and a change in existing signage should achieve their
goal.
Chairperson Baird said that he agrees with Mr. Millers comments adding that
the signage problem does seem to be self imposed and the signage problem
should have been addressed at.the development stage of the motel.
Chairperson Baird also agreed with the applicant that the driveway of the
motel is hard to find from Gateway Street and perhaps another off premise
sign should be requested. Chairperson Baird asked staff for regulations
regarding off premise signs. Mr. Puent stated that the Code is content
neutral, and off premise signs are not an issue, however, in order for a
sign to be located on another property, that business owner would have to be
willing to give up a portion of their signage to allow the placement of a
freestanding sign for a business located somewhere else.
Chairperson Baird asked the applicant if they had considered a triangle
shaped sign to try and advertise in three directions and achieve their need
to inform the east and west bound traffic of their location. Mr. Jones
stated that in order to create a triangle shaped sign, the size of the face
of each sign would be reduced considerably and does not consider that an
option at this time. Chairperson Baird said that he is not in support of
the roof sign at this time because of the conflicts with the Sign Code, the
Sign Codes intent and the other signage options that are available to the
applicant. Chairperson Baird requested an explanation of the 20 foot height
limitation. Mr. Puent explained other sign district requirements in the
City and the considerations involved with different heights and sizes of
signs.
Mr. Ingram suggested to the applicant that the 65' freeway sign be relocated
closer to the motel structure. At it's current location, he feels it may be
a detriment to the business because of the distance from the sign to the
motel and the name on the sign is different than the name on the motel. Mr.
Ingram also stated that he is in favor of the roof sign and felt that by the
applicant agreeing to remove all nonconforming signage and placing one roof
sign in place of five wall signs it would enhance the business. Mr.
Gillette said that one wall sign would also replace the five wall signs.
Mr. Ingram again stressed the confusion of using two business names for one
motel and the confusion it could cause for possible customers. He also felt
that if the Board approved this request, it would not set a precedent, that
each variance request would be looked at and judged individually. Mr.
Miller asked if the applicant is considering changing the 65' sign in the
future. Mr. Gillette said that is being considered.
Chairperson Baird called for a motion. Mr. Miller moved to deny the request
for the variance because the height request is a substantial departure from
.
.
Board of Appeals
December 8, 1994
Minutes
Page 4.
the Sign Code and from the City Council's intent and adoption of the Sig?
Code after a number of public hearings with both property owners and
business owners. Chairperson Baird seconded the motion. Mr. Ingram again
said that this is a unique situation and should be considered for approval.
Chairperson Baird called for the vote on the motion. Mr. Miller and
Chairperson Baird voted to deny the variance application. Mr. Ingram voted
to approve the application. The motion was denied by a vote of 2 to 1.
Chairperson Baird stated that although he agrees with Mr. Ingram in regards
to the uniqueness of the property, he personally does not have a problem
with a modification or amendment to the Code to allow the height of a roof
sign at a specified number of feet above the roof line. Mr. Puent stated
that if the applicant decides to appeal to the City Council, he will inform
the Council of Mr. Bairds statements.
3. Business from the Board: None
4. Business from the Staff: None
s. BueinAss from the Audience: None
6. The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 p.m.