Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Sign Review Board > 2010 > August 25, 2010

Sign Review Board

Black Eyed Susan Conference Room
August 25, 2010
2:00 PM

Re:  Public Hearings 

SRB2010-00517 – 11 North Washington Street, John Marshall Bank

This modification request is to permit a building sign to be erected on the side of the building that does not conform to the property's current sign concept, which is white letters on a green awning with a red logo color. 

A representative with Art Display presented the applicant's request for two signs.  One sign is proposed on the front of the building, facing North Washington Street with white letter on a green awning.  This sign complies with the Property's sign concept plan.  The second sign is proposed to be erected on the side of the building that is facing East Montgomery Avenue that would be a channel letter sign in the company's corporate colors of blue with a red logo.  The representative stated that the owner and management company of the property is in support of the modification. 

The Board discussed the colors and other signs on the property. 

Mr. Worthing moved, seconded by Ms. Goehrung to approve SRB2010-00517 as presented.  The motion passed on a vote of 3-0. 

SRB2010-00514 – 2800 Tower Oaks Boulevard, GEICO

The Board reviewed this application at the July 14, 2010 meeting.  The applicant was requesting a modification to allow a second freestanding sign to be erected closer than the 50-foot setback from the property line.  The Sign Ordinance requires a 50-foot setback and allows only one freestanding sign.  The Board approved the placement of the sign within the 50-foot setback; however, there were concerns with the wording on the sign.  It has been determined by the Senior Assistant City Attorney that the decision of the sign text was not within the Board's purview.  The Sign Ordinance is intended to be sign content neutral, therefore, the applicant has re-submitted the request for the second freestanding sign with the original text. 

Erika Leatham, Attorney with Meyers, Eisler & Leatham, LLC, presented the applicant's request and discussed the history of the property.  She stated that there were two issues to be discussed:  1) the property line, and, 2) the placement of the second freestanding sign.  She noted that Geico did not want one large sign.  Ms. Leatham stated that, after the Assistant City Attorney informed them that the decision of the sign text was not with the Board's purview, the applicant was asked to come back before the Board to re-submit the application.  Ms. Leatham asked for approval of two variances, one for placement of the first sign and one for the second freestanding sign.     

Mr. Worthing discussed the legal issue with the second freestanding sign.  Ms. Leatham explained that the Sign Ordinance does not control what a sign says.  Mr. Worthing stated that this same legal issue was before the Mayor and Council twenty years ago and it is a definite legal issue as to what the purview is of this Board.  Mr. Worthing discussed the matter and the fact that the Board was just informed that it could not discuss the wording on signage.  He felt that it was fundamental that the Board has the right to approve conditions on a variance and he believes that this is an issue that must be discussed again at the City level. 

Terry Korth, representing the applicant, stated that, after speaking with Ms. Dietrich on the phone recently, he misunderstood the condition at the Board's July 14, 2010 meeting.   Mr. Korth said that he believed that the condition was relative to Tower Oaks Professional Park.  Mr. Korth explained to the Board that the ownership group (Boston Properties, Lerner, and Tower Companies) of this property has given their permission for the signs being presented today.  Mr. Korth asked for explanation of the condition of approval. 

The Board further discussed concerns regarding two signs, wording on the second sign, hardship if the second sign is not approved, setback, and location of the signs. 

Mr. Worthing moved, seconded by Ms. Hanessian to approve the location of the signs having the same setback as the existing Geico sign.  The motion passed unanimously.

The Board and staff discussed the possibility of allowing only one sign for the property.  It was suggested that the applicant could merge the two signs together at a 90-degree angle. 

Mr. Worthing summarized that the applicant would not getting the necessary two votes to approve the application.  He noted that this application could be held open for modification without bringing in a new application. 

In response to Mr. Korth, Ms. Dietrich explained that a 90-degree sign would not require a variance because it would be counted as one face. 

Ms. Dietrich stated that both comments from Ms. Goehrung and Hanessian regarding the sign content have been sent to the Legal Department and they will be preparing a Written Opinion, which she will distribute to the Board as soon as she receives it. 

The Board and staff discussed legal matters regarding Sign Ordinance requirements. 

Re:  Minutes

Mr. Worthing moved, seconded by Ms. Goehrung to approve the minutes of July 14, 2010 as written.  The motion passed unanimously. 
           
Re:  Adjournment  

The meeting adjourned at 3:15 pm. 

The next meeting of the Sign Review Board is scheduled for Wednesday, October 6, 2010 at 2:00 PM in the Black Eyed Susan Conference Room, located on the 3rd floor of City Hall.