HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4305-D Staff AnalysisAugust 27, 2001
Item No.: 1
File No.
Owner•
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Proper
Staff Report-
A. Public Works Issues:
Z -4305-D
Windriver L.L.C.
2300 Cottondale Lane
Tract F -2B, Riverdale
O-2
A variance is requested from the
sign provisions of Section 36-553
to permit a second ground -mounted
sign on this office property.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Office Building
Office Building
No issues related to this sign variance.
B. Staff Analysis:
The 0-2 zoned property at 2300 Cottondale Lane is occupied
by a 4 -story, 34,020 square foot building and an associated
parking lot. The site has a small, precast, concrete
monument sign that identifies only the building name and
street address. The applicant proposes to place a second,
monument style, ground -mounted sign on the property. This
second sign will be 5 feet in height, will have an area of
30 square feet and will have space for identification of 3
of the building's tenants. Section 36-553 of the code
limits Office zoned properties to one ground -mounted sign.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variance and
believes that the problem could be better addressed by
replacing the existing ground -mounted sign will one large
enough to meet the applicant's needs. The office district
August 27, 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
Permits ground -mounted signs to be 6 feet in height and to
have an area of 64 square feet; well above that of the two
signs proposed by the applicant. One ground -mounted sign
would be more compatible with other office signage in the
Riverdale office area. Additional identification could be
gained through the use of wall signs.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the application.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(AUGUST 27, 2001)
The applicant, Jimmy Moses, was present. There was one objector
present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
denial.
Mr. Moses addressed the Board and stated his reasons for
requesting a second sign. He stated the building was unique in
that it had a restaurant as a tenant. Mr. Moses stated the
restaurant needed additional signage. Mr. Moses stated it was
his desire to have a second sign, segregated from the building
identification sign.
Ms. June Riddick addressed the Board in opposition to the item.
She stated she designed the building and it was her desire to
keep the signage "low-key." Ms. Riddick stated the restaurant
occupied only 10% of the building and the restaurant owner was
aware of her desire to keep the signage low-ke
y. ed
existing building identification sign was compatible ewith to here
signs in the area. Ms. Riddick stated she would prefer to see
the restaurant create a new entrance that would be more clearly
identifiable. Ms. Riddick described the proposed sign as more
appropriate for a commercial strip center and "denigrating.,,
Mr. Moses informed the Board that Ms. Riddick was a minority
owner of the site; that her son, Dr. Bauer, whom he represented,
owned 90%.
During the ensuing discussion between Ms. Riddick and Mr. Moses,
each agreed that there was no desire to remove the existing sign.
There was no agreement on the issue of a second sign.
Fred Gray commented that he did not agree with the proposal to
have a second ground -mounted sign. He stated he would prefer to
see the restaurant put a tasteful sign on the building.
E
August 27, 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.
1 In response to a question from Mr. Moses, Ms. Riddick stated she
did not want wall signs on the building, other than for a small
identification sign at the restaurant entrance.
Fred Gray commented that the existing sign could be modified to
accommodate the building's tenants.
Ms. Riddick again stated her opposition to any change in the
existing sign.
William Ruck stated he would prefer to see the issue deferred to
allow the parties to discuss the issue.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, stated that deferring theN
item would not change the issue before the Board. He stated
staff would still oppose a second sign. Mr. Carney noted that
the other options, such as wall signs or increasing the size of
the existing ground sign, were allowed by right and, as such,
would not require Board approval.
Jimmy Moses requested a vote on the issue.
A motion was made to approve the variance request to allow a
second ground -sign. The vote was 0 ayes, 5 noes and 0 absent.
The motion was denied.
3