BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES December 13, 2005 The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Wichita, Kansas was held at 1:40 p.m., on December 13, 2005, in the Planning Department Conference Room, Tenth Floor of City Hall, 455 N. Main, Wichita, Kansas. The following board members were in attendance: JAMES RUANE (in at 1:43p.m.), ERMA MARKHAM, BICKLEY FOSTER, DWIGHT GREENLEE, STEVEN ANTHIMIDES (in at 1:40p.m.), and JUSTIN GRAHAM The following board members were absent: MICHAEL GISEK. City of Wichita staff present: HERB SHANER – Office of Central Inspection present. SHARON DICKGRAFE – City of Wichita, Law Department The following Planning Department staff members were present: JESS MCNEELY, Secretary. YOLANDA ANDERSON, Recording Secretary. FOSTER It is 1:40pm. I will start the agenda. Who is here for the first case on the agenda? FOSTER We have a quorum of 5, Let us look at the 2006 calendar, notice we will have a meeting, the Tuesday after Thanksgiving. Do I heard a motion to approve the Calendar? GREENLEE I move to approve 2006 Board of Zoning Calendar MARKHAM Seconded. Motion carried 5-0 FOSTER The next item is the minutes. Do we have move to approve minutes? GREENLEE I move to approve the minutes. ANTHIMIDES Seconded. Motion carried 5-0 FOSTER Jess do you have any extra copies of the Agenda and Staff Report for Ms. Markham? MCNEELY Yes. FOSTER We are ready to hear BZA2005-00067, a variance case. MCNEELY I am now the Secretary for the BZA. I am here to present BZA2005-00067. BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to utilize an existing approximately 5,000 square foot building for a church youth activity center. The sponsoring church is Our Lady of Perpetual Help, one block north and west of the site, at Market and 23rd. Using Section of IV-A.4. of the Unified Zoning Code (UZC), the Office of Central Inspections (OCI) has determined that 55 parking spaces would be required for this use, the site has only seven parking spaces, including one ADA space. The Church, approximately 850 feet from the site, has 60 parking spaces and has submitted a letter offering the use of those parking spaces for the youth activity center. Sidewalks exist on Market and 22nd Street between the two sites. Section of IV-A.6.b. of the UZC requires that off street parking shall be located within 600 feet from the building it is intended to serve. A variance is required to reduce the parking requirement for the proposed youth activity center by more than 10 percent; a variance would also be required to provide the required parking at a location further than 600 feet away. The applicant has submitted the attached written statement to justify the requested variances. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH "GC" Storage, retail SOUTH "GC" Night Club, restaurant EAST "GC", "GI" Rail Corridor, industrial uses WEST "B" Single-family residences The five conditions necessary for approval apply to all variances requested. UNIQUENESS: It is the opinion of staff that this property is unique inasmuch as the legal buildings on the site consume most of the site. The large building, proposed for the youth activity center, was built in 1930, prior to current code parking requirements. The property is also unique within an older mixed-use neighborhood, where patrons of the proposed center could walk from nearby residences, or walk as proposed from the church parking lot. ADJACENT PROPERTY: It is the opinion of staff that granting the requested variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners. The youth activity center would be most active during non-business hours. Likewise, the proposed off site parking arrangement should keep the youth center patrons from parking in nearby business parking. Additionally, on-street spaces are available nearby on both Market and 22nd Street for occasional overflow parking situations. HARDSHIP: It is the opinion of staff that the strict application of the provisions of the zoning regulations constitutes an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant, inasmuch as requiring the strict compliance with the parking regulations would be impossible on this site. PUBLIC INTEREST: It is the opinion of staff that the requested variances would not adversely affect the public interest, inasmuch as the public has an interest in providing institutional facilities and activities within existing neighborhoods. The public also has an interest in the continued use and redevelopment of older neighborhoods and facilities. SPIRIT AND INTENT: It is the opinion of staff that granting the requested variance would not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the zoning regulations, inasmuch as the parking requirements of the zoning regulations are not appropriate in all cases, and the distance from off- site required parking is not appropriate in all cases. Therefore, variances to relieve parking requirements are permitted if proper justification is available. The zoning regulations attempt to provide sufficient parking to meet the demand of the use. The use of the property requires less than the typical number of parking spaces since the youth center serves the church that is one bock to the north; the youth center also serves the immediate residential neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Should the Board determine that all five conditions necessary to grant the variance be found to exist, then it is the recommendation of the Secretary that a variance to provide 48 required parking spaces for a church youth activity center at the Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church, approximately 850 feet from the site, be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the approved site plan. 2. The applicant shall record and file an Off-site Parking Space Covenant and Agreement with the Office of Central Inspections for the Youth Activity Center use, with parking provided at the Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church. 3. The applicant shall obtain all permits necessary to construct the improvements, and the improvements shall be completed within one year from the date the variance is granted unless such time is extended by the Board. 4. The resolution authorizing this variance may be declared null and void upon findings by the Board that the applicant has failed to comply with any of the foregoing conditions. Are there any questions of staff on this request? FOSTER Show the co-relationship on how close the residents are that makes it walking distance? MCNEELY The application area is outline in red and sets at the northwest corner of 22nd and Broadway. The proposed parking is at 23rd and Market. If you look at where I am pointing now at 23rd and Market that parking lot has been offered for use by the church at that location. You can see one could head south on Market either on the east or west side of the street on existing sidewalk for 1 block to 22nd and then turn east on the north side of the 22nd street where sidewalk exist and access this site. It is 850 feet away a full city block and it does exceed the 600 foot requirement that the zoning code would required for off-site parking. FOSTER It appears they are asking for 2 variances. One is to reduce the number of parking spaces and the other would be to actually to justify the increase in distance from 600 approved distant to 850. MCNEELY I agree it could be view that way. The way we did it was just to approve the 600 feet offsite parking requirement. If this site is still required to provide 55 space if 48 of those spaces are provided off-site, the one variance would be to provide those 48 spaces at greater than 600 feet away. Our recommendation is to grant the variance to provide the required parking greater than 650 feet away at the identified site and have the required paperwork filed with OCI to solidify that relationship. FOSTER Any questions? MARKHAM Yes, I was wondering. Did you say they only have activities on Wednesday night? Is the activity center open any other youth in the community such as walk-ins? Or how else will the community part be handled there? MCNEELY You can ask the applicant that question. FOSTER Any other questions from members for the staff? We will open it up to the public and ask the applicant to make presentation. MAX CHRISTENSEN , Derby Kansas, I am the agent for the Youth activity center. As far as I am aware the only time it would be open is for the youth activity group. As far as it being open to the public, I do not think is will be. Was that your question? MARKHAM Yes. CHRISTENSEN It is for the church group and only on Wednesdays. They are not using it on Sunday when the parking would not be available because they would have parking problems at the chapel on Sundays. Youth activity will be used Wednesdays. FOSTER Are there other things that you would like to present? CHRISTENSEN There is some parking south of 23rd. This parking here is part of the parking that belongs to the church. FOSTER Do you intend to use that parking? CHRISTENSEN I am pointing out that it is part of the Church's parking lot. FOSTER How many youth are participating? CHRISTENSEN The youth activity ranges from 25-30 kids. RUANE Would it seem probable that since it is a youth center, that many of the youth may be dropped off and pick up at a later time? FOSTER Is there anything else that you would like to present? If no other question from the board, is there anyone is else would wishes to speak? There are no other parties present wishing to speak. I would point out here, Ms. Markham, that there is nothing here that guarantees that this is going to be the only people that will use it. There are no suggested conditions to limit this other than the amount of parking that they will have. MCNEELY If you look at the conditions, condition number 2 states that the applicant shall file and off-site parking space covenant agreement with the Office of Central Inspection for the Youth Activity Center Youths with parking provided at Our Lady Perpetual Help Church. They are isolating the one use, the Youth Activity Center use, and the off-site parking agreement will assist in narrowing the use of this building. This is a private property owner not the Catholic Diocese that owns the building. If the property owner, in the future, wanted to cease to provide this building for the Catholic Church and use it for a different use the parking agreement would no longer work of anything other than the purposed use. FOSTER So, it is limited to the youth group, it is not limited numerically. If it is successful, and we hope they are, they could have more participants than anticipated now. It is confined within that one group by restricted covenant. MARKHAM The activities are not defined. Are they going to have plays, choir rehearsals? Therefore, I cannot see how the parking is going to be. Someone did state that it may have an activity where the parent can drop the youth off and go. But, are all the activities going to be such as to be dropped off and parent go? Will they have a play where the community will be invited to participate? FOSTER Ask Mr. Christensen that question. CHRISTENSEN It is my understanding that if they have a play or something of that nature. They will use the other facility which is better suited for that type of activity. FOSTER So, they would not be using the parking at that time? CHRISTENSEN No. FOSTER Just the regular church parking area? CHRISTENSEN Any activities involved with this particular building, if they required additional parking, it would use the parking at the church that is where they would go to utilize the parking. FOSTER Did that answer your question Ms. Markham? Thank you Mr. Christensen. I am now holding the discussion to the Board. RUANE I think we should focus on appropriate solution staff has proposed. Condition number 2 of recommendation really compensates for any burden or difficulty that may be created granting the variance. It is set-off and required to be filed on record. The church has agreed and is saddle with the responsibility to provide parking space for the youth of the Youth Activity Center that happens to be more than 600 feet away. I think that the particular specifics of that requirement together with the staff support that we approach only the request of the variance greater than 600 feet. Staff recommendation should be adopted as proposed. FOSTER Any other finding or comments from members? GREENLEE Moves that the board accepts the finding that is set forth in the Secretary report and that all 5 conditions be set up in section 2001 and 2.590B of the City Code that is necessary for recording of a variance that has been found to exist and that the variance be granted subject to be set out to the conditions in the secretary report. GRAHAM Seconded Motion carries 5-0 FOSTER We are ready for the next case BZA2005-00073 this is a variance to a sign. MCNEELY A letter is provided that was not mailed out with the packet that addresses the 5 conditions for the variance that we would like for you to read. FOSTER Are you finished with your presentation? MCNEELY No I am not. FOSTER Please take a few minutes to read the letter. Has every one read it? MCNEELY I am here to present BZA2005-00073. BACKGROUND: The Sign Code permits building signs, however, according to section 24.04.185.d., the height of building signs shall not exceed the height of the roof or building parapet. The applicant indicates a desire to place a nine-foot tall neon lighted sign on a building face, projecting approximately three feet above the wall parapet. The portion of the sign extending above the wall is an arrow, directing to the applicant's parking area behind the building via a private alley. Please see the attached site plan and elevations. This site is within the Delano Overlay district, the requested sign appears to comply with the Delano Design Guidelines, but will require approval for that district. The surrounding uses on Douglas are primarily commercial with a church located east of the site and parking to the south. The proposed signage would be visible from east and west bound Douglas Street. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH "GC" Parking, retail, restaurant SOUTH "LC" Parking EAST "LC" Church WEST "LC" Retail The five criteria necessary for approval apply to both variances requested. UNIQUENESS: It is the opinion of staff that this property is not unique for the purpose of this variance request; the property is developed with a traditional commercial building along Douglas, similar to other traditional commercial buildings in the older parts of the city. The requested wall sign could serve the intended purpose without the variance to extend above the parapet line, and still direct vehicles to the parking area behind the building. ADJACENT PROPERTY: It is the opinion of staff that the granting of the variance requested would not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners, unless an adjacent property owner found the sign projecting above the parapet to be an aesthetic detraction. HARDSHIP: It is the opinion of staff that the strict application of the provisions of the zoning regulation will not constitute an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant, inasmuch as other traditional commercial buildings (also with rear parking) have designed and installed signage in conformance with existing sign regulations. PUBLIC INTEREST: It is the opinion of staff that the requested variance in and of itself would not adversely affect the public interest. However, as a precedent, if other signs were permitted to project above roof/parapet lines, the resulting affect could lead to a more unsightly, cluttered development. SPIRIT AND INTENT: It is the opinion of staff that the granting of the variance requested would oppose the general spirit and intent of the Sign Code inasmuch as the sign regulations are designed for application to include traditional commercial buildings with rear parking. The intent of these regulations is to have uniform standards. RECOMMENDATION: It is staff's opinion that all the conditions necessary for the granting of the variance do not exist; therefore, it is the recommendation of the Secretary that the variance to allow a building sign to project above the building parapet be DENIED. If, however, the Board should determine that the conditions necessary to grant the variance exist, then it is the recommendation of the Secretary that the variance to allow a building sign to project above the building parapet be subject to the following conditions: 1. The building signage and location shall be in substantial conformance with the graphics submitted with this application. 2. The applicant shall obtain all permits necessary to construct the building signage and the building signage shall be erected within one year of the issuance of the sign permit, unless such time period is extended by the BZA. 3. The resolution authorizing this variance may be declared null and void upon findings by the Board that the applicant has failed to comply with any of the foregoing conditions. MCNEELY Are there any other questions? FOSTER The letter we received refers to the Landmark Preservation Officer as having approved the design and size. Do you have a letter on that? MCNEELY No. That would be important to conformance with the Delano historic guidelines and would prove that the sign is aesthetically consistent with the Delano area. The fact that it is approved with the Delano guideline is irrelevant to the sign code regulation that states that the sign cannot extend above the building parapet. The sign variance request is outside the sign regulations. FOSTER Did this seek the approval of the district? MCNEELY The Delano design guidelines are similar to the old-town design guidelines that require approval by committee. That approval has taken place. I sure it is a letter that indicates from the historic planner that it meets the design guidelines for that district. FOSTER If we agree to the findings… If approve, would it go on to HPB? MCNEELY The way I understand it the application would not go on to the HPB? There is just a staff committee approval requirement for the conforming to the design guidelines of the Delano District. That has already taken place. FOSTER I think the Board is aware that if one condition out of five happens to fail criteria, and if we agree to the findings, we are unable to pass the request. FOSTER Jess are you saying that 5 of them fail the test? MCNEELY That is from staff prospective. The applicant has a different prospective. Of the 5, we find specifically that two, uniqueness and hardship, we do not find to exist. That is from staff prospective. FOSTER Are there any questions from the members? RUANE Just an observation, I think Jess pointed out well that the Historic Preservation process is entirely irrelevant to the five factors that we are to consider. The less discussion on that the sounder our decision will be. FOSTER Yes, Ms. Markham. MARKHAM I want to restate also that it would be against the rule of the zoning regulation that specifies about the height of the sign above the roof. MCNEELY Yes, a provision in the sign code prohibits a sign such as this from extending above the roof-line. That this picture clearly depicts. DICKGRAFE It would not be a violation if the sign were moved down to the side of the building as long as it was leveled with the roof. MCNEELY Exactly, you are correct. Yes, that is the sign code whether it is good, bad or indifferent. This is the sign code we have to deal with until it changes. FOSTER Jess, I believe your prospective shows there are not any other signs above the roof on the other buildings on that side. MCNEELY There has been none permitted under a variance. FOSTER Open it up to the applicant to make presentation. JOHN SAINDON, I own Ron Sign. I am one of three owners of Ron Signs. I am from Derby, Kansas. I have been hired by Gary Oborny the property owner to be an acting agent for this project. I have worked with the Delano District. I have some handouts that I would like to pass out. FOSTER Have the staff seen these pictures? FOSTER Jess were these handouts reviewed prior to this meeting. MCNEELY No, but I am familiar with the area. RUANE I think the less interruptions, more specifically, the late submissions from an applicant does a disservice to the Board. FOSTER I agree with you. SAINDON I did call and ask if I could do this prior to the meeting. SAINDON This is a view from west to east of the location. Picture number two show the alley that allows traffic to head south into the parking area. There are only 6 parking spaces in front of the building. I was hired to come up with a sign to clearly define the way to the parking area. I worked with OCI, Gary and the tenants to come up with a design to show the way to the parking area; so, the business would not suffer from not finding a place to park. In picture number two, it shows a 20ft drive to enter this parking area. The raised sign clearly depicts that the parking in back of the building. We could have easily pulled this sign away from the building and lower it and projected it out but the problem with that is it make it appear as though the parking is in front of the building. Although, there is parking in front in the building is not enough for what this center will require. By having the sign projecting over the building, it gives clear indication to know where the parking is. By having the arrow pointing over the building, it shows 100 percent that parking is behind the building. Picture number three shows that the parking lot spaces. Picture number four photo shows a sign in the Delano area that is raised above the roofline and is within the era and it is a neon sign. Photo number five shows the Delano District sign that is similar to an entrant way to a parking lot as well. The second page is a close-up rendition picture of the sign. We have the word parking at the end of the sign and there is neon on it that meets the Delano Criteria. I have been in the sign business a long time and I feel it will enhance the area because it fits in the area. It is an old area, this area I have worked in a long time and the design is of it era. I realize that the sign code does not allow a sign to project above the roof. We felt strongly enough to pay for a variance that placing the sign above the roof will enhance parking and help the public in that is will help traffic. Most businesses have entrances in the back of the building to enter the place of business without walking all the way to the front. As far as the hardship goes, I believe there is a hardship here. We have 6 parking spot out in front of a 6-8 tenant building. Tenants customers are complaining about no parking. There is out back but we need to find a way to guide customers to the back parking area. This design clearly defines the way to the back parking area. Any question? FOSTER Any questions from the Board? FOSTER Did you try to develop a more traditional sign for the edge of the corner of the building and found that it did not work or something. SAINDON We did look at all manner of ways to develop this signage. We look at a sign that would project away from the building if you look at the sign upon the screen. We felt like the sign had to have an arrow. The sign can project out two and a half feet and we would still meet the sign code. We could project out more to accommodate that arrow and lower it till it was not over but aesthetically it did not work well. We worked with Kathy Morgan, Kurt Schroeder and John Schlegel. We all agreed that protruding that sign out two and half feet did not look well and would start blocking signage that would hung for future tenants. We did look at all types of ways to create this sign and this way clearly define that the parking is in the back. FOSTER Why does the drawing have Metropolitan Baptist Church on the backside? Are you using their parking lot or what? Why is that there? SAINDON There is a private usage parking agreement with the church. That was done when the property was developed. FOSTER Any questions from the members? Is anyone else here to speak? GARY OBORNY, I am the developer of this building. I am the here to address the hardship portion. When we first purchased this building, the important thing with developing buildings downtown or in this area is parking. You have to have parking to have a viable location. We exercised a private development parking agreement with the Church when we purchased the building from the church. We have remodeled the building. We do the leasing and marketing for this property. During this process we were able to sign two tenants, we still have 6 vacancies for that building to get it into the black to make a profit to get it a viable development. I am trying to respond to potential tenants that questions where is the parking. We need to be able to facilitate to the customers as to where the parking is located. We have six on street parking spaces with the west end of the building. That is the number one request of the customers. They feel they need more signage up on the building to indicate where to find the parking. The problem is that this is a very monolithic block in the sense that our building continues west and there are other buildings that are contiguous with our building. There is no access until you get to the very next street in order to get back to the Lawrence Dumont area. So we have one area to hit and that is the private drive area on our east side. It is very important that the drive is denoted to customers driving by. If you have gone down that street, it is a two-lane street that turns to one. I have observed drivers stopping to find parking. We are hoping that this signage is very evident to drivers that parking is in back. We need to fill up the center to make this into a viable development. I met with John Schlegel, Kathy Morgan and Kurt Schroeder to make sure this item received positive support. I understand that those discussions were communicated to Jess. As you can see all those parties, signed off on the Delano sign. I believe it is not the sign protruding above the parapet but rather the square feet of the sign; is that correct? Are we not allowed four square feet above the parapet of a building? MCNEELY No, it is above the parapet. OBORNY In the meeting that I had with Kurt Schroeder, he said four squared feet was allowed but we are five and a half. RUANE Let's focus on whether or not the sign can protrude the 3 feet over the roofline. OBORNY I was just asking a question. That is what I understood. We tried all type of designs for this sign. We bought the sign off so that we can have it below. Then the other issue is the uniqueness that the staff does not feel it meets. There are signs up and down in that area that does not fit the code. There are signs that are very aesthetic. There are signs that enhance the area and it uniqueness. We design this sign to celebrate the traveler building to match the history of this building and we are doing two murals on this building. So we are trying to match that building history as well as fit in with the Delano District. Public Interest is not an issue. We do not have any surrounding businesses that have a problem with what we are doing. I believe it is in the public interest. This sign help to clearly define there are 70 parking spaces behind the building. Thank you. FOSTER Any questions for Oborny? Is there any one else here to speak on this matter? Jess, do you have anything else that we need to know? MCNEELY No. FOSTER Mr. Oborny can you return to the podium. I have a question; is the entire length of the sign 9ft tall neon sign. Is that the entire length of it? Including the 3 feet that projects above the roof-line? OBORNY This is 9ft but the revised sign is 7ft in height. FOSTER So which is it? The curved area and the entire sign is seven feet or nine feet? OBORNY Approximately 7ft in the revised sign. FOSTER The staff report refers to nine. OBORNY The picture that you have shows the 9ft sign. FOSTER Any comments for the board? Seeing no one else is here to speak, I will confine the discussion to the Board. This looks like the electric part taken off a portable signs that taken off and turned up north or something. This is something that you see on a portable sign. Many people find those offensive. I do not find it attractive. I do not see a hardship in putting a sign on the edge of the building. GREENLEE I suppose the sign is directional on both sides. Seems like there are some misunderstanding on the signage regulation in the previous meeting. MCNEELY There is a clear understanding that the sign is projected over the parapet of the building and that it is outside the signage regulation code. The approval given by the Delano District is a completely separate issue. OBORNY I have notes from the meeting held 8/04/05 with John, Kathy and Kirk. I explained clearly that I did not want to go to BZA without the staff support. There was not communication with staff and the person who wrote the recommendation. FOSTER Any further discussion from the board? RUANE I think we should decide on is the footage above the sign regulation. GREENLEE There was some confusion about the distance allowed above the wall. FOSTER Miller, are you prepared to answer? MILLER JR Cox is in the audience, if there is any thing outside this, he can advised the Board. FOSTER I find it is not a hardship. I have seen lots of signs that say parking in the rear. This sets a precedent. I recommend that the Board accept the finding set forth by in the Secretary's report. All conditions set out in the City Code of the granting of the variance are found not to exist and the variance be denied. MARKHAM Moved that it be denied. RUANE Seconded. GREENLEE We need to defer to verify to the board that there is no regulation that would allow them to have a sign above the roof-line. MILLER Mr. Cox can explain the building conditions. He has questions about the construction of the building before he can answer the questions completely. J.R COX, I work with OCI. The building has to meet certain conditions before I can answer the question on whether the sign can project above the roof-line. There has to be certain amount of area above the windows that you can use before you can hang a sign above the roof-line. If this is the building that we are looking at, I guessing that this building does have the area to have a wall sign; therefore, they cannot use the parapet. The only thing I may add is that the four and a half area may be the area that projects above the parapet. This is the first time I seen this case and everything is off the top of my head. FOSTER Dale, this would not be able to project above the roof? MILLER The sign proposed is illegal. Delano Design guidelines are separate and different from the variance issues raised in the BZA. FOSTER I will motion to continue it to determine whether the sign code allows and extension to go over the roofline. All in favor? FOSTER All opposed. FOSTER Show of hands. Motion carries 3–3 FOSTER The motion fails it needs a majority vote. FOSTER I will call a motion to accept the secretary recommendation, all in favor that the variance be denied? FOSTER Show of hands. FOSTER Motion carries 4-2 and it passes. This is the final vote unless you want to appeal it to the District Court. FOSTER The variance request fails and is denied. FOSTER We will here BZA2005-00075 the Vineyard Christian Fellowship Church a variance to enlarge their sign. MCNEELY I am here to Present BZA2005-00075. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a variance to place a sign over the main entrance of an existing church on property zoned MF-18. The proposed sign is on the south side of the property, facing the church parking lot and Blake Street, and facing SF-5 zoned single-family residences approximately 270 feet from the proposed sign. The attached site plan and elevations show the proposed sign location and sign. The sign does not meet Sign Code requirements in that it exceeds a 25-square foot limit by 39%. The applicant submitted the attached statement pertaining to the conditions for granting the variances requested. The sign may be internally or externally lit, provided that the lighting is white in color. The uses immediately surrounding the proposed location of the sign are single-family residences to the south and west, multi-family residences to the north, and I-135 to the east. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH "MF-29" Multi-family residential SOUTH "SF-5", "TF-3" Single-family residential, duplex EAST "SF-5" I-135 Freeway WEST "TF-3" Single-family residential The five conditions necessary for approval apply to all variances requested. UNIQUENESS: It is the opinion of staff that this sign location on this property is not unique, but faces the church parking lot, a residential street, and single-family residences. The church site does have a façade facing I-135; a larger, internally lit sign (permitted because it is facing an expressway) was permitted by right for that façade. ADJACENT PROPERTY: It is the opinion of staff that the granting of the requested variance could adversely affect the single-family property owners south of this site, as the sign is larger than signs which normally face single-family residences. No landscaping on the church property exists to obstruct the view of the proposed sign from the single-family residences south of the site. HARDSHIP: It is the opinion of staff that the strict application of the provisions of the sign regulation will not constitute an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant, as the proposed sign location faces a residential street with no significant traffic. The church has been permitted for signage facing the heavily traveled I-135. Signage conforming to the sign code should be adequate for those in the parking lot to find the church entrance. PUBLIC INTEREST: It is the opinion of staff that the requested variance would not adversely affect the general public interest, inasmuch as the signage is tasteful in design. It is the opinion of staff that the requested variance would adversely affect the interest of single-family property owners south of the site. SPIRIT AND INTENT: It is the opinion of staff that the granting of the variance requested would oppose the general spirit and intent of the Sign Code inasmuch as the sign regulations are designed for application to include churches that face their own parking, residential streets, and single-family residences. The intent of these regulations is to have uniform standards. RECOMMENDATION: It is staff's opinion that all of the conditions necessary for the granting of a variance do not exist; therefore, it is the recommendation of the Secretary that the variance to allow a 34.75 square-foot sign be DENIED. If, however, the Board should determine that the conditions necessary to grant the variance exist, then it is the recommendation of the Secretary that the variance to allow a 34.75 square-foot sign be subject to the following conditions: 4. All signage and locations shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and elevations. 5. Internal or external illumination of the sign shall be with white light. 6. Portable signage shall not be permitted on the subject property. 7. The applicant shall obtain all permits necessary to construct the signage, and the signage shall be erected within one year of the granting of the variances, unless such time period is extended by the Board. 8. The applicant shall submit a Landscape Plan, to be approved by the Planning Department, which conforms to the Landscape Ordinance. 9. The resolution authorizing these variances may be declared null and void upon findings by the Board that the applicant has failed to comply with any of the foregoing conditions. Are there any questions of staff? FOSTER Is this a sign used as identification sign when you get there or is it to attracted people? MCNEELY This sign is a bulletin board sign to let people know that are at the Vinyard Church and clearly denote where the main church entrance is located. The sign is not on a high volume street traffic to attract passing cars. FOSTER Are there any other questions? RUANE Does the code permit a lighted sign? MCNEELY The code permits this sign to be lit internally or externally with white light. RUANE It is the size of the sign. MCNEELY The sign is 39 percent greater than what the code would allow. FOSTER Any other questions? We will call the applicant now. Brian Kirkland with Miracle Signs. I am representing the Vineyard Church. We are at 3611 N Broadway in Wichita. We want to increase the signage on the south elevation by 10 square feet from what is allowed. We are illuminating with white light. It is over the main Entrance. Looking at the five conditions recommend by staff, we have a different opinion from what they have found. We do not have access from I-35 to the Church. The traffic coming is off of Blake and Minneapolis. We need signage to direct people to the main entrance. We only increase the sign in size so that it is aesthetically pleasing. Does any one have any question on what we are trying to accomplish? MARKHAM The two streets Minneapolis and Blake how far away will this sign be viewed? KIRKLAND From Blake it is 270ft to the curb and from the west it is over 500ft. Minneapolis comes straight into the Church. MARKHAM The sign on the east side can that sign be seen before approaching? KIRLAND There is no access from I-35. MARKHAM You can see the sign? KIRLAND Yes. MARKHAM But can you see it from the other side of the Church? KIRLAND No. When you come into the area you cannot see that sign because you are approaching from the south side. That sign cannot be view because it is on the east side of the building. FOSTER Show us the location of the variance signage. MCNEELY The location of the variance request is on the south side of the building. FOSTER Let us see the proposed sign. MCNEELY This is the proposed signage, it does not exist. FOSTER What is the size on the drawing? KIRKLAND Larger letters 16 inches and smaller letters 11 inches. FOSTER Any other questions? We will confine questions to the board. KIRKLAND I do have one more statement. We have not received any objections from any of the neighbors within 200ft of the property. MCNEELY That is correct. We have received no feedback from the community. FOSTER It is an identification sign for the front main entrance that does not need to be any larger. GREENLEE I feel it is an identification sign and there is no reason for it to be enlarged and all your doing is illuminating the neighborhood and that may become annoying. FOSTER Any another comments? I recommend that we move to accept the finds. Is there a motion? GREENLEE I move that the Board accept the findings that are set forth in the Secretary's report and all five conditions set out in Section 2.12.590B of the City Code to not approve variance according to staff recommendation. MARKHAM Seconded. Motion to deny, carried 6-0. HERB SHANER of Office of Central Inspections, I have three closures. BZA2005-00013 generally located south of 21st north and east of K96. There were several variances to the sign code. They have all been met, permits were pulled, JR Cox was the sign inspector and he has cleared everything off. That is okay. BZA2005-00033 wants to variance to reduce parking requirement for neighborhood swimming pool from 19 spaces down to 9 and to permit the parking area within the front setback to SF-5 single family, located south of 29th north and east of Tyler, the plans were pulled, everything is stripped and handicap sign is up and ready to go. BZA2004-00094 variance to reduced the parking requirement from 29 to 7 spaces to waive the screening requirement and to waive the landscaping requirements. This is generally located in the Northwest corner of Douglas and Chautauqua at 2936 East Douglas. I pulled the permits. Everything was done according to the wishes of the Board. That is closed out. Any questions? FOSTER Any other questions? I think we need to discuss the handouts at the meeting. It bypasses the staff and it does not give us a time to review it. I think we should not allow that during the meeting. RUANE They have a deadline to submit application to make certain all materials are submitted. Anything afterward should not be guarantee that it will be considered. GREENLEE Everything that we receive is to be submitted to us from staff. FOSTER They pay to go before this board and we need to have the information ahead of time to do a better job for them. GREENLEE On that Douglas case, I thought it was some misunderstanding between staff that is why I made the motion. FOSTER When you made your motion, you did not have the information until JR. JR Cox has worked here for many years. RUANE Does the applicant receive staff's recommendation before the meeting? MCNEELY Yes. FOSTER Find the Policy that restrict handouts given during the meeting. MILLER We will see what we can find. MARKHAM Despite the applicant having a prior meeting and feeling that they had support, we are responsible to the City signage law. FOSTER They did not recognized that we are a judicial body. MILLER After the applicant received the staff recommendation, we received a call saying that they felt they had the approval of the office staff and we talked with those individuals and they never agreed with them that it would pass. FOSTER I have a lot of complaints about signage lights put on buildings for these payday loans. When they wrote this into the signage 10 or 15 years ago, I do not think this was what they have in mind. I recommend an update in sign code to properly address the flashing lights at payday loans. FOSTER Is there a motion to adjourn? MARKHAM I move that we adjourn. GREENLEE Seconded. Motion carried 6-0 Adjourned 3:48pm Page 17