HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4933-I Staff AnalysisAPRIL 25, 2016
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.:
Owner:
Applicant:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification.-
Present
ustification:Present Use of Property:
Z-4933-1
Chenal Investments, LLC
Joe White, White-Daters and Associates
15,721 Chenal Parkway
Southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road
C-3
A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section
36-557 to allow a wall sign without public street frontage.
The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Branch Bank
Proposed Use of Property: Branch Bank
STAFF REPORT
49
Public Works Issues.-
No
ssues:
No Comments.
Staff Analysis_
The C-3 zoned property at 15,721 Chenal Parkway is occupied by a two-story
commercial building, which houses a branch bank facility (Onebanc). The property
is located at the southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road. Paved
parking is located on the north and west sides of the building. There is an access
drive from Kanis Road at the south end of the property and an access drive (right -
in, right -out only) from Chenal Parkway at the northeast corner of the property. A
ground -mounted sign is located at the northwest corner of the property. Wall
signage is located on the north and west building facades. Drive-thru lanes are
located on the east side of the building.
The applicant proposes to install a wall sign on the east fagade of the building, as
noted on the attached graphics. The proposed sign will be approximately two (2)
feet by 15 feet in area. It will be similar to the existing wall signs on the north and
west facades. The applicant notes that the wall sign on the east fagade is needed
to "allow motorists that are west bound on Chenal Parkway to see the branch earlier
allowing additional time to merge into the left turn lane at the Kanis Road
intersection."
APRIL 25, 2016
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.
C
Section 36-557(a) of the
required street frontage.
the proposed wall sign
frontage.
City's Zoning Ordinance requires that all wall signs face
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow
in the east facade of the building, without public street
Staff does not support the requested sign variance. Staff does not believe the
request as reasonable. Staff does not agree with the applicant's assessment
regarding the need for the sign on the east facade. There is no left turn into this
property for west bound traffic along Chenal Parkway. West bound traffic on Chenal
Parkway has to turn left onto Kanis Road and use the access drive at the south end
of the property. Staff feels that the existing wall sign on the north fagade and the
existing ground -mounted sign at the northwest corner of the property provide
adequate identification of the bank facility to west bound motorists, allowing ample
time for merging into the left turn lanes to Kanis Road. Staff does not believe that an
additional wall sign is warranted in this case.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested wall sign variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(April 25, 2016)
Joe White was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial.
Joe White addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that the sign
on the east building fagade was needed so that west bound motorists on Chenal
Parkway would have time to merge left and turn onto Kanis Road. He gave examples
of other wall signs without street frontage in the area. This issue was briefly discussed.
Rajesh Mehta asked how customers locate the bank. This issue was briefly discussed.
Vice -Chair Tucker asked how high off the ground would the proposed sign be. Mr.
White noted approximately 20 feet. This issue was discussed.
Debra Weldon, City Attorney, noted that according to the Board's bylaws, no action by
the Board of Adjustment sets a precedent for other actions.
Dana Carney, Planning Staff, explained that some of the examples of signs without
street frontage noted by Mr. White were part of PZD zonings. He explained the recent
change in the ordinance which granted the Board of Adjustment authority to hear
variance requests within overlay districts. There was additional brief discussion
regarding signs without street frontage.
There was a motion to approve the requested sign variance, as filed. The motion
failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent. The application was denied.
2