HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6389 Staff AnalysisNovember 24, 1997
Item No.: A
File No.
Owner•
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of _Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff ?ariaiysi s :
Z-6389
George Wimberly, Buice Drug Store
3013 West Markham
Part of Lot 24, Block 2,
C. S. Stifft's Addition
C-3
A variance is requested from the
lighting provisions of Sections
36-547(4) and 36-547(6).
The sign has been in place for 35
years and has recently been
repaired to operate as it was
designed and built to.
Pharmacy
Pharmacy
Buice Drug Store is located at 3013 West Markham Street, in
the Stifft Station area. A projecting sign is located on
the front wall of the store. The sign was recently repaired
so that it now has a series of flashing lights which
produces the illusion of liquid flowing down from a tilted
beaker into a mortar. The applicant was advised that the
sign is in violation of city code and has asked for a
variance to allow the flashing lights to remain.
Section 36-547(4) of the City Code states that no sign may
utilize any device that allows oscillating, rotating of
flashing lights.
Section 36-547(6) of the Code states that no sign may
utilize the illusion of movement by means of a preprogrammed
repetitions sequential switching action in which illuminated
elements of the sign are turned off or on to visually
simulate the impression of motion.
November 24, 1997
Item No.: A Cont.
In staff's opinion, it is clear that illusion of flowing
liquid created by the flashing lights on the Buice Drug
Store sign violates the provisions of Sections 36-547(4) and
36-547(6). Since the implementation of these prohibitions
in the Sign Ordinance (now part of the Zoning Ordinance).
Staff has consistently enforced the regulations to prohibit
such "flashing" or illusion of movement.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 29, 1997)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant's attorney had
requested deferral until November 24, 1997 due to previous
commitments. It was noted by staff that it appeared that
Mr. Wimberly had turned the sign off pending resolution of this
issue.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the November 24, 1997 Board meeting by a vote of
5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 24, 1997)
George Wimberly and Ed Daniel were present representing the
application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of denial.
Ed Daniel addressed the Board in support of the variance. He
stated that the sign had been damaged by hail several years ago
and had only recently been refurbished at a cost of $3,000. Mr.
Daniel stated that the slight appearance of motion was harmless
and did not distract people's attention from driving. He asked
the Board to give consideration to the historical nature of the
sign. Mr. Daniel stated that the City had issued a permit for
the sign several years ago.
In response to a question from Ann Palmer, Dana Carney of the
Planning Staff noted that flashing signs were outlawed by the
1974 Sign Ordinance and any permits would have been issued
subsequent to that. (The sign permit for this sign was issued in
April 1976).
George Wimberly addressed the Board. He stated that he had
repaired the sign at the request of several customers and
neighborhood residents. Mr. Wimberly described the action of the
sign and stated that he had it repaired to function as it had
originally.
November 24, 1997
Item No.: A Cont.
In response to a question from Willie Lee Brooks, Mr. Wimberly
stated that the sign had been in place for 40 years and that he
had a city sign permit for it.
Mr. Brooks made note of the longevity of the sign and commented
that the City appeared to condone it by issuing a sign permit.
Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles commented that the sign itself
is allowed by permit but that the flashing lights are not
allowed.
Mr. Wimberly spoke again in support of the sign and stated that
he did not see any harm in allowing it to flash.
There was then a brief discussion of the effective date of the
sign ordinance in relationship to the date a permit was issued
for Mr. Wimberly's sign. Mr. Carney reiterated that no city sign
permit was issued which would allow the sign to flash.
Mr. Brooks commented that the Ordinances were on the book and
valid at the time a sign permit was issued. He asked Mr.
Wimberly if he was aware at the time a permit was issued that it
was only for the sign and did not allow flashing lights.
Mr. Wimberly responded that he felt it was approved "as is",
including the flashing lights.
Nevil Withrow commented that he felt this portion of the sign
ordinance was archaic and needed changing.
Ann Palmer stated that she felt the sign added to the ambiance of
the Hillcrest neighborhood. She also stated that she felt the
sign had historical significance.
A motion was made to approve the sign with flashing lights. The
motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 noe, 0 absent and
2 open positions.
3