Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Board of Appeals 1997-5-14 (2) .. ,. . . CITY OF SPRINGFIELD BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Springfield City Hall 225 Fifth Street Meeting Rooms 6 15 & (; J 5 jCO'3 l-letl" loW Wednesday May 14, 1997 11'OOa.m, 1. RollCall: Present were Jim Ingram, Thomas Miller, Tim Hovet, and Virginia Lauritsen, Butch Baird was absent. In Mr. Bairds absence, Virginia Lauritsen acted as Chair for the Board, Staff Present: Dave Puent; Lisa Hopper, Secretary to the Board 2, It was moved by Tom Miller to approve the minutes of the August 22, 1997 Board of Appeals meeting. Jim Ingram seconded the motion, The motion passed unanimously. 3, New Business: Doubletree HoteL 97-04-101 Tim Hovet stated that he will be unable to participate in this discussion and voting due to a conflict of interest. The property in question is located at 3280 Gateway Street, Springfield, Oregon. The applicant was requesting a variance from Section 9-7-4 (4) of the Springfield Sign Code relative to the maximum allowable time for the placement of banners, The property is in the 1-5 Commercial Sign District. Lisa Hopper presented the staff report to the Board, Ms. Hopper stated the Doubletree, formerly known as the Red Lion is currently in a transition stage due to a recent purchase of the Red Lion on Gateway Street. Ms. Hopper added that because of the number of conventions that are planned a few months, or even a year in advance, the new owners wanted to place banners on their existing freestanding signs to notify their customers of the ownership change by placing a banner for 30 days that says "Red Lion soon to be Doubletree" and after the 30 day period, the banners would be reversed that would state "Doubletree formerly Red Lion" for an additional 30 day period, Ms. Hopper stated that Doubletree obtained a banner permit on May 7th to install banners on May 9th, so the banners that are now in place are permitted banners. She added that this request will .not create a hardship for any neighboring properties, and will not present a vision hazard since it will be placed on existing signage. Ms. Hopper stated that staff supports the variance as requested. Tom Miller stated that the appeal seems straight forward, and to provide the applicant the opportunity not to present a lengthy presentation, he is prepared to support the request. Virginia Lauritsen agreed with Mr. Miller, .' . , . . Minutes Board of Appeals May 14, 1997 Page 2 Jim Ingram moved to approve the request extending Doubletrees current bahner permit to 70 days, Tom Miller seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with Tim Hovet not voting due to a stated conflict of interest. Liberlv Federal Bank 97-04.1 OJ. The property in question is located at !008 Har1.ow Rn"n, Springfield, Oregon. The applicant was requesting a variance from Section 9-7-14 (2) of the Springfield Sign Code relative to the placement of an additional freestanding sign. The property is in the Community Commercial Sign District. Dave Puent presented the staff report to the Board. Mr. Puent presented the Board with sealed letters that were left at the counter for them from Liberty Federal Bank. Mr. Puent said staff was not presented with a copy of the letter. Mr. Puent asked the Board refer to the plot plan which was included in their packet. He said this property was assigned a tax lot number by the County Assessors office, The assignment was for taxing purposes only. In order for the lot to be designated as a legal tax lot, the property would need to go through the City's partition process, Mr, Puent stated the structure proposed is to be occupied by Liberty Federal located within a development area, and the development area is allowed one freestanding sign, He added that there is an existing freestanding sign on the southwest portion of the site. Mr. Puent presented photographs of development areas in the City showing the one freestanding sign which is shared by the tenants, Mr. Puent added that staff has looked at the property and provided the Board with photographs of the building and the existing signage. Mr. Puent stated the building is approximately 17 feet in height. The structure currently has three wall signs on the North, South, and East side. Mr. Puent said the existing signs are 72 square feet each, Mr. Puent referred the Board to the drawing that the applicant submitted showing where the proposed monument sign would be placed, Staff feels the building has good visibility from all directions. Mr. Puent gave examples of properties that have gone through the partition process to create a legal tax lot and would be allowed a freestanding sign. Mr. Puent stated staff does not support the request and recommends denial of the request because there are other alternatives to this variance approval. He suggested the applicant could go through the partition process with the Planning Division to create a legal tax lot. He added it would be difficult for staff at this time to look at the property and be able to identify any criteria which would justify an additional freestanding sign, John Revell, representing Liberty Federal Bank stated his reason for requesting the monument sign is the uniqueness of the area. He feels the area is a financial district and his company is offering another choice to the citizens, Mr. Revell stated their choice of using existing building stock which was existing in the City was not their first choice, but saw an opportunity with the location and their business. .. . . Minutes Board of Appeals May 14, 1997 Page 3 Mr. Revell said the building is below street grade, and there are other financ'iallnstitutes in the area they will be competing with which are larger. Mr. Revell said the existing signage is visible only if you stand in a certain location, The monument sign Selco has is obvious, and that is what they would like to have, [fthey are not allowed the monument sign, it would be a detriment to their business, Mr. Revell stated they have looked at partitioning the property, but felt it would be detrimental to the "good neighbor" feeling with the other tenants in the complex, Mr. Revell stated that they are willing to do a deed restriction to remove the sign if the bank relocates, He added that he did not realize by dividing the property through the Tax Assessors office they would not meet the requirements of the Sign Code. Tom Miller asked Mr. Revell if the bank has a long term lease on the building, Mr, Revell said he did not know the end result of the lease agreement, but is sure it is either a long time lease, or an option to buy the structure, Mr. Miller said if the lot was legal separate lot, the Sign Code would allow the freestanding sign. Mr. Revell said the owner of the property is willing to partition the property, but Liberty Federal is not wanting to do that at this point. Mr. Miller said if they are wanting a freestanding sign, partitioning the property is the only option for them at this time, He added there are no unusual conditions on this property that would warrant a variance approval for a freestanding sign at this location. Mr. Hovet asked Mr. Revell when lease negotiations began. Mr. Revell stated he estimated last fall. Mr. Hovet asked if Mr. Revell checked with the City for the allowable signage for the property, Mr, Revell stated they had not and it was discovered that they would not be allowed a freestanding sign when they applied for their sign permits with the City, Mr. Revell said the lease agent had told Liberty Federal they could have a monument sign, Mr. Revell stated he spoke with private engineers and was advised to get an assignment of a separate tax lot from the Assessors Office, Mr. Hovet stated he visited the site and is having a difficult time finding a compelling reason to be in favor of the variance requested. He stated that Liberty had a responsibility to check with the City on signs which are allowed. Mr, Ingram also stated he visited the site and felt that the building was very well signed other than one tree that blocks their temporary construction sign from one direction. At most times, he could see two signs from one direction. He added he felt the monument sign would be a hindrance to the visibility of the building and existing signage, Mr. Ingram also added he felt that the'partition process should be pursued. Mr. Hovet moved to accept staffs recommendation of denial of the variance requested. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 4. Business from thp. Ro~rrl None 5. Business from St;J(f The Sign Code update will be presented to the City Council for the first public hearing on June 2nd. The second public hearing will be held on June 16th. If the update to the Sign Code is .. Minutes Board of Appeals May 14,1997 Page 4 . . approved, the changes will go into effect on July 1, 1997, Dave Puen, briefly discussed the proposed changes with the Board, ' . Mr. Puent explained to the Board the Division holds one meeting a year with local contractors to discuss changes they would like to see in the Division and to update them on changes and proposed changes within the Division, He asked the Board if they would like to participate in the upcoming contractor meeting, He also told the Board that the Community Services Division was told to reduce its budget by 20% due to the passage of Measure 47. The Division will eliminate the Business License position, but not the program, The business licenses will be on a two year renewal instead of a one year renewal, and the program will be absorbed by existing staff. The Division will also loose a ,5 support position, .4 of a Code Enforcement Officer, a Construction Representative, materials and services funds which includes demolition money, council contribution money, and contractual services money. Mr. Puent explained to the Board all of the responsibilities that are assigned to the Community Services Division in addition to Building Safety, Mr. Puent said staff is in the process of rewriting the Building Safety Code Administrative Code. The priority is the substandard building section, He added that we want to shorten the process and provide the City more authority to act quicker in dangerous situations, The City received approval from FEMA, After quite some time, we were able to obtain the certificates for the properties that were improved in the floodplain and send the information to FEMA. Mr. Puent said that FEMA was satisfied with Article 27 of the Development Code. The City had to submit an operational plan to the State as required by Senate Bill 35, We have completed our plan and met all of the requirements of the bill. The Division is currently in the process of preparing requests for proposals for a new building permit computer system. 6, Tim Hovet moved to adjourn, Jim Ingram seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 1:05, Tom moved to approve minutes, Jim seconded