Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies illuminated cross sign for Oak Grove Assembly Church
Summary
Roeland Park City's Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance for a 10-by-6-foot internally illuminated cross at Oak Grove Assembly Church, citing code limits on symbol size and concerns about illumination and neighborhood impacts; the motion failed when the board did not reach three affirmative votes on the uniqueness test.
The Roeland Park City Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request to install a 10-foot-by-6-foot illuminated cross on the facade of Oak Grove Assembly Church at 4740 Mohawk Drive.
Paul, appearing for the applicant and Envision Sign Solutions LLC, described a backlit cross intended to wash the brick wall behind it rather than cast light outward. "The cross will be backlit, so the LEDs will shine on the wall, not outwards towards the street," he said, and estimated the enclosed LED installation would generate roughly 900 lumens directed at the wall. He offered a timer or dimmer as a potential mitigation.
Neighbors told the board the existing monument sign already produced noticeable light in nearby living rooms and worried a larger, illuminated symbol would increase reflected illumination and nighttime disturbance. "It's already quite disruptive in the evening," said Laurel Perkins, who said bedroom windows face the church. John Watkins said winter months with sparse foliage make the interior of his home more visible to light from the property.
Staff reported the sign area limits for residential zoning and noted a code element that caps a symbol at roughly 4 by 4 feet while overall sign area is limited to 25 square feet. Staff said the size of the proposed cross was the principal code issue and recommended against internal illumination; uplighting or a wall wash could be lawful if it did not create a nuisance.
City attorney Alex Belozin told the board it could not impose conditions on a separate, existing legal nonconforming monument sign as part of this approval; any change to that sign would trigger separate code compliance requirements. The board then voted on the uniqueness criterion; the roll call recorded two yes votes and two no votes, short of the three affirmative votes required, so the variance failed on that finding.
Because the board failed the initial finding, no separate conditions or approvals were adopted. The applicant may revise the proposal (for example, by reducing symbol dimensions to align with the 4-by-4-foot symbol limit or using uplighting that is demonstrated not to create a nuisance) and return to the board.
