HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7463 Staff AnalysisAugust 25, 2003
ITEM NO.: 16
File No.: Z-7463
Owner: Paul Mark Southern, LLC
Address: 6425 S. University Avenue
Description: Northeast corner of S. University Avenue
and West 65th Street
Zoned: C-4
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign
provisions of Section 36-530 to allow a
mansard sign which extends more than
18 inches form the mansard roof line.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Restaurant
Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
The C-4 zoned property at 6425 S. University Avenue is occupied by a
newly constructed Bojangles restaurant. The restaurant building is
located near the center of the lot, with paved parking on the north and
south sides. There are access drives from S. University Avenue and
West 65th Street.
On December 2, 2002, the City's Planning Staff issued sign permits for
two (2) ground -mounted signs and one (1) mansard sign. The mansard
sign is located on the west side of the building and has a height of 5' — 7
'/" and a length of 14'— 2'/4", for a total area of 53.66 square feet. The
raceway on which the channel letters are attached is 14 inches tall. The
August 25, 2003
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.
mansard sign extends approximately four (4) feet from the surface of the
mansard roof. Based on the fact that the sign extends more than 18
inches from the mansard roof surface, the sign was to be "boxed -in" on
the front, sides and top. This was the only reason the sign permit was
issued.
Section 36-530 of the City's Zoning Ordinance defines a
"wall sign" as follows:
"Wall sign means a sign attached parallel to and extending
not more than eighteen (18) inches from the wall of a
building. "Wall sign" includes painted, individual letter and
cabinet signs and signs on a mansard."
Evidently, miscommunication between the restaurant owners and the sign
contractor resulted in the sign not being "boxed -in". Therefore, the
restaurant owners are requesting a variance from the above listed
ordinance section to allow the sign to stay as is.
Staff does not support the requested sign variance. Had staff known the
sign was not going to be "boxed -in", the sign permit would not have been
issued. The existing mansard sign is rather large as compared to the
same type signs which have been approved for other restaurants. Staff
feels that the sign is too large for the mansard roof, as it extends the
entire height of the mansard roof structure. Staff believes that the sign
should be "boxed -in" or removed and placed on a vertical wall surface.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003)
Mark Zoeller and David Ashley were present, representing the application.
There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a
recommendation of denial.
Mark Zoeller addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that it
would take $2,000 to $5,000 to "box -in" the sign. He said that he could not
afford to do it at this time.
2
August 25, 2003
ITEM NO.: 16 _(Cont.
Chairman Ruck asked if there was a miscommunication that caused the sign not
to be boxed -in. Mr. Zoeller stated that there was a miscommunication between
the two (2) sign companies. He stated that he as the property owner did not
know of the requirement to box -in the sign.
Fred Gray asked Mr. Zoeller why he did not wish to box -in the sign. Mr. Zoeller
noted that he wanted to maintain the corporate image of the business. He also
noted that the lights behind the sign would be lost if the sign were boxed -in. He
noted that he did not want the sign to look different from other Bojangles signs.
Fred Gray stated that a solid background should make the sign standout more.
The issue of sign lighting was briefly discussed.
Terry Burruss expressed concern with the size of the sign and how the building
would look if the sign were boxed -in.
Chairman Ruck stated that he had no problem with the sign as installed.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, reiterated the fact that staff did not support
the application. He stated that the mistake was made by the applicant and not
staff. He stated that modifying the sign would not adversely affect it.
There was a motion to approve the sign variance, as filed. The motion failed by
a vote of 1 aye, 3 nays and 1 absent. The variance was denied.
3