Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6325 Staff AnalysisJune 30, 1997 Item No.• 5 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Z-6325 First Commercial Trust Company (Homer's Restaurant) 2001 East Roosevelt Road Part of the NE 1/2, NW 1/4, Section 13, T -1-N, R -12-W I-2 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-320 and the prohibited sign provisions of Section 36-543. A ialicant's Statement: The project consists of a 928 sq. ft. addition to the West side of the building and a remodel of the front entrance. The primary purpose of the remodel is to make the restaurant handicapped accessible. The new entrance and new restrooms meet ADA regulations. A new emergency exit is also being located off the dining area. In addition, the remodel will provide seating for approximately 15 customers. We have applied to you for two reasons: 1.Homer's restaurant is listed as a non -conforming building with respect to the front yard setback. This means the property line in front of the building (facing South) is closer than the I-2 zoning permits. We wish to add to the West side of the building. This makes it necessary to apply for approval from the Board. (Please refer to the site plan for proposed addition.) June 30, 1997 Item No.: 5 (Cont. 2. The remodel of the front entrance meets ADA requirements and will present a new look for the restaurant. We have designed a vertical element over the entrance to act as an equipment screen and an architectural feature. (Please Refer to the Elevations.) This feature is in the shape of a coffee cup. It does not have a sign on it. We are asking your approval of this feature. We feel this look represents the restaurant's character. It will also add to the character of the neighborhood on East Roosevelt Road. Present Use of Property: Restaurant Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: 1. Roosevelt Road is a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan. Construct % street improvements with construction or contribute in -lieu fees for widening. Existing street is 16.5 foot wide from centerline versus 30 feet required for minor arterials. 2. Grading permit will be required on this new development, if it disturbs more than one acre. 3. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 5. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. B. Staff Analysis: The owners of Homer's Restaurant, located on the I-2 zoned property at 2001 East Roosevelt propose to construct a 928 square foot addition onto the west side of the building. The addition is being built primarily to accommodate new handicap accessible restrooms. The addition will have a front yard setback of 12 feet. The Ordinance requires a front yard setback of 50 feet in the I-2 district. They also propose to place an "architectural element" on the roof of the building shaped like a coffee cup. The Board must determine of this is a prohibited roof sign. 2 June 30, 1997 Item No.. 5 Staff believes the requested front yard variance is reasonable. This portion of Roosevelt -Road has a right-of- way much in excess of that required by the Master Street Plan. The existing building is located approximately 100 feet south of the street. All of the parking between the building and the street is actually located in the right-of- way. The applicant has indicated that he will be filing a request with the City to have a portion of that excess right-of-way abandoned which will increase the front yard area of this property. The proposed addition does not extend any further into the front yard than the existing building. The proposed "architectural element" will extend approximately 10 feet above the roof of the building. It will be shaped like a coffee mug and the building's mechanical equipment will be located within it. There will be no lettering or logo on the structure. The ordinance defines "sign" as: "any device, structure, fixture or placard using graphics, symbols, and/or written copy designed specifically for the purpose of advertising or identifying any establishment, product, goods or services." Section 36-453 Prohibits roof signs. The Board must determine if this element meets the definition of a sign. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested front yard setback variance subject to compliance with Public Works Comments. Staff offers no recommendation on the proposed "architectural element." BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 30, 1997) Gary Langlais abstained on this item. Frank Riggins and James Mitchell were present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommended approval of the setback variance. Mr. Riggins addressed the Board and briefly discussed the setback issue. He described the remodeling project and asked for approval to put "Homer's Restaurant" on the proposed coffee cup. He stated that the cup will add to the building's character and would convey what is available in the building. 3 June 30, 1997 Item No.: 5 Cont. Willie Lee Brooks referred to the definition of a sign and asked if Mr. Riggins had not just described the coffee cup as a sign. Mr. Riggins responded that it did. Mr. Brooks asked if the coffee cup as proposed by Mr. Riggins, was not conveying a message. Mr. Riggins responded that there was no question that it does convey what the establishment provides. Mark Alderfer asked Mr. Riggins if he wanted to amend the application to include lettering or a logo on the cup. Mr. Riggins responded that he was not adamant about that particular proposal. Nevil Withrow stated that putting lettering or a logo on the cup would automatically make it a sign. Chairman Alderfer asked Assistant City Attorney Cindy Dawson if the Board could approve a roof sign, since they are specifically prohibited by the ordinance. Ms. Dawson responded that the Board could not. She stated that the Board must determine if the "architectural element" described by Mr. Riggins was a sign or not. If the Board determines that the cup is a sign, she stated, the Board cannot approve its placement on the roof. Mr. Riggins stated that he would remove his request to have lettering or a logo on the cup. Mr. Brooks referred again to the definition of a sign, specifically "any device or structure." Mr. Riggins stated that he was asking the Board to approve the cup as an architectural element. He stated that any signage would go on the building, not on the cup. Nevil Withrow stated that he was willing to go along with the interpretation that the cup is an architectural element. He made a motion to approve the requested setback variance and to determine that the cup is an architectural element as long as it has no -lettering or logo on it. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 noe, 1 absent and 1 abstaining (Langlais). 0