HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6689-B Staff AnalysisJanuary 31, 2000
Item No.: A
File No.
Owner•
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Re ort:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z -6689-B
Olde Towne, Inc.
300 East Markham
Part of Block 35, Original City of
Little Rock
GB
Variances are requested from
the sign location, appearance,
lettering and illumination
provisions of Section 36-353 (River
Market Design Guidelines).
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Former warehouse building now being
remodeled.
Retail Shops and Restaurant
No issues associated with this sign variance.
B. Staff Analysis:
Vesta's is a new retail business which has opened in the
newly remodeled building located at 300 East Markham Street,
in the River Market District. Vesta's occupies the corner
of the building which fronts onto East Markham and
Cumberland/LaHarpe. Signs have been proposed for the
business which exceed ordinance standards for the River
Market District.
A 4' X 8' (32 sq. ft.) wall mounted sign has been placed on
the west hall, facing Cumberland/LaHarpe. Section 36-
353(c)(2)a limits the size of signs in this area to 25
square feet.
January 31, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.)
The letter "V",,in "Vesta's on this same sign is 210" in
height. Section 36-353(c)(3)a limits the height of letters
to 1' 611.
Signage is proposed to be placed on the perpendicular/
projecting architectural element on the Markham Street fagade.
Again, the letter "V" in "Vesta's is proposed to be 210" in
height, exceeding the maximum of 116" allowed by Section 36-
353 (c) (3) a.
The signage on this perpendicular/projecting sign will have
metal lettering which will be back -lit with neon to produce
a silhouette effect. Section 36-353(d)(4)b prohibits the
use of neon on projecting signs.
The last variance request concerns the number of proposed
signs. Section 36-353 (c) (1) (b) limits businesses to a
total of 3 signs. Vesta's proposes a total of 5 signs;
the wall sign on the Cumberland fagade, the perpendicular/
projecting sign on the Markham Street fagade, 2 window signs
on the Markham Street fagade and 1 on the front door with
hours of operation.
The River Market Design Review Committee has discussed the
issue and recommends approval of the requested variances. A
copy of the Committee's report is attached. Staff concurs
with the Committee's recommendation.
The signage needs on the Cumberland/LaHarpe fagade are
different than elsewhere in the District. Signs on this
fagade face a heavily traveled state highway which is not as
pedestrian oriented as the remainder of the District. The
minor sign area and lettering variances for the sign on the
west fagade should have no effect on other area businesses.
The "esta's" part of the lettering on the perpendicular/
projecting sign on the Markham fagade is 6" in height, well
below the allowable 1'6". Only the "V" in "Vesta's" exceeds
116" in height, being 210" tall. Staff believes the overall
appearance of the sign is appropriate, considering the
reduced size of the majority of the lettering.
Neon is not permitted to be the main source of light,
illumination is to be from a concealed source of light or a
decorative source. The neon will be installed in the back
of the channel letters on the perpendicular/projecting
2
January 31, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.)
signs, producing a silhouette effect. The neon will not be
visible.
Vestals proposes to have 2 small, window signs, which when
added to the other proposed signs, exceed the allowable 3
signs per business. The small window signs are at street
level, to serve the pedestrian traffic on East Markham
Street. These signs will not exceed 16" in height and the
lettering will be of an unobtrusive dark color.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign location,
appearance, lettering and illumination variances subject to
the signs being designed in the size and color as proposed
by the applicant and approved by the River Market Design
Review Committee.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 27, 1999)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
One letter of opposition from an area property owner had been
received.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had failed to
complete the required notification procedure and the item needed
to be deferred to the January 31, 2000 meeting. The item was
placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral by a vote
of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2000)
Gary Langlais abstained on this issue. Jamie Moses was present
representing the application. There were no objectors present.
One letter of opposition had been received by staff and forwarded
to the Board. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
approval subject to the signs being designed in the size and
color as proposed by the applicant and approved by the River
Market Design Review Committee. It was noted that the Design
Review Committee had determined that the addition of a "light"
border around the word "Vestals" on the Markham Street windows
met the original agreement between the applicant and the DRC.
Fred Gray asked Mr. Moses what the status was of a temporary,
"easel" sign located in front of Vestals. Mr. Moses responded
3
1 11
January 31, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.)
that he did not know. Mr. Gray informed Mr. Moses that he was
sure a permit was needed for the temporary sign.
Norm Floyd asked why some of the requested signs had been erected
prior to approval having been given and permits issued. Mr.
Moses responded that some signs were put up prior to Christmas to
advertise the business for that important retail season.
Williams Ruck asked Mr. Moses to present some justification for
the requested variances. Mr. Moses responded that the site was
on a corner and had two facades, not one as many businesses in
the River Market District. He also noted that the store fronted
onto a state highway on one side.
Norm Floyd commented that the galvanized material used on the
architectural projection on the Markham Street fagade appeared to
be deteriorating. Mr. Moses responded that the material would
not be allowed to deteriorate or to become dangerous.
Mr. Floyd stated that he would prefer to vote separately on the
variance issues. During the subsequent discussion, the Board
determined that it would vote on three issues:
1. The variances associated with the wall sign on the
Cumberland/LaHarpe Frontage.
2. The variances associated with the sign on the projecting,
architectural element on the Markham Frontage.
3. The request to have a total of 5 signs.
A motion was made to approve the sign size and lettering
variances for the wall sign on the Cumberland/LaHarpe Frontage
subject to compliance with the condition proposed by staff. The
vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Langlais).
The variances were approved.
A motion was made to approve the lettering size and use of neon
variances requested for the sign to be placed on the projecting,
architectural element on the Markham Street Frontage subject to
compliance with the condition proposed by staff. After the
second, Norm Floyd stated that he was opposed to this type of
sign, that he felt it was out of character for the River Market
District and did not meet the intent of the district. The vote
on the motion was 2 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining
(Langlais). The motion failed and the variances were denied.
A motion was made to approve the request to have a total of 5
signs subject to compliance with the condition proposed by staff.
4
January 31, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.)
After the second, Norm Floyd commented that the site did have two
frontages and perhaps additional signage was not unreasonable.
Fred Gray commented that the additional signage on the windows
and door would be directed to pedestrian traffic. Scott Richburg
stated that he was also in support of the request to have the
additional signs as proposed. William Ruck stated that he felt
the signage on the building was gaudy and not in keeping with the
River Market District but that he would accede to the Design
Review Committee on this issue. The vote on the motion was
4 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Langlais). The motion
was approved.
5