Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Anderson/Indris Hauser campus signage variances, allows taller monument sign
Summary
The Greenwood board granted variances to allow metal-based campus monument signs and a 24-foot-tall monument sign at a growing corporate campus, overruling staff recommendations to deny the base and height variances.
The Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals approved multiple sign variances for a corporate campus described in the record as 2350 Indris Place, allowing metal (rather than masonry) monument sign bases and authorizing a 24-foot monument sign where the code limits are six feet.
Krista Taggart, who identified herself as deputy general counsel and project manager for the petitioner, told the board the company’s new 108,000-square-foot innovation center and broader campus use a modern, metal-accented design and asked for flexibility from a code requirement that monument signs use masonry bases. “This is not a cost-savings request,” Taggart said; she told the board the metal bases fit the campus aesthetic and that the petitioner had invested heavily in the new facility.
City planning staff recommended denial for the base/material waivers and raised concerns about the proposed 24-foot monument sign, saying the code’s six-foot limit exists to maintain neighborhood scale. The staff presentation acknowledged the petitioner’s design goals but said the sign height seemed excessive and that the municipal sign standards are applied uniformly across zoning areas.
Board members voted to admit the record into evidence and then approved four separate variances waiving the masonry-base requirement for signs labelled in the staff packet as Sign 10, Sign 15, Sign 20 and Sign 30; each of those motions passed by unanimous recorded votes. The board also approved the petition to exceed the 6-foot monument-sign height and allow a 24-foot sign at Sign 15; that motion carried on a recorded vote taken after discussion. The board directed corporation counsel to draft written findings of fact reflecting the decisions for consideration at the next meeting.
The petitioner emphasized campus branding and wayfinding as the rationale for the request, showing examples of taller, vertical campus signs in other metropolitan areas and describing plans to co-brand the primary entrance sign with a tenant. Staff said the proposed signage would not injure public safety but still recommended denial on code-compatibility grounds, asking the board to weigh practical difficulty and aesthetic placemaking against the ordinance’s uniformity.
Speakers and participants agreed that many campus buildings already have large wall signs and that the requested monument signs would be consistent with the petitioner’s modern campus design. The board’s approvals permit the petitioner to proceed with sign design under the new variances; the board requested corporation counsel prepare findings for adoption at the subsequent meeting.
The article uses speaker names and roles as given in the public hearing and limits quoted material to the record of the meeting.
