Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board deadlocks on sign variance for Aurora BayCare entrance; staff and applicant to rework design
Summary
The board failed to approve a request by Aurora BayCare for a larger directional/monument sign at its West Mason Street entrance after split votes and debate over the sign’s size, height and whether the request represented the minimum relief necessary under city sign rules.
The Zoning and Planning Board of Appeals did not approve a proposed directional monument sign for Aurora BayCare’s property at 2253 West Mason Street after the panel split on whether the request exceeded the sign code’s exemptions.
City planner John Leroy told the board the applicant seeks a directional monument roughly 8.45 feet wide and 10 feet tall with an overall graphic area described in staff materials as about 84.5 square feet; the branded face of the sign (the green panel with text) measures roughly 47 square feet. Leroy explained directional signs in the exempt‑sign portion of the code are generally limited to 6 square feet in commercial and mixed‑use districts and are capped at 6 feet in height; the proposed structure would exceed the exempt sign size and height limits and therefore required board action.
Dana Dahlman Zadjakowski, representing Aurora, said the sign is the primary directional marker for the facility’s main entrance off a private access road and that visibility from Interstate 41 and vehicle circulation within the cul‑de‑sac justified a larger monument. “It’s important to have adequate signage to detail their location for the public,” she said, adding the new sign will be set back slightly farther from the cul‑de‑sac pavement than the existing sign and that Aurora sought visual consistency with other campus signs.
Board members debated the variance criteria. Several members said the parcel’s cul‑de‑sac location and the visitor‑destination nature of the site give it exceptional circumstances similar to another recent directional‑sign case; another member criticized the proposal as larger than necessary and said it appeared driven by brand design rather than need. One board member noted the site had a prior variance in the early 2000s for a roughly 45‑square‑foot directional sign and that the new branded face would be about two square feet larger than that previous approval.
A motion to approve the variance was moved and seconded but the board’s vote resulted in a tie; the chair declared the motion did not pass. Staff advised that if the applicant reduced the sign face to 47 square feet or less and lowered the overall height to no more than 6 feet the proposal could qualify as exempt directional signage and would not need board approval. Staff also said substantial changes could allow the item to return to the board for reconsideration at a future meeting.
Applicant and staff agreed the case would benefit from additional design work to reduce the base height and overall massing; Dana Zadjakowski expressed disappointment at the timing but said Aurora will continue working with city staff on a revised design.
