Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8205 Staff AnalysisJUNE 25, 2007 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z-8205 Owner: John Schlereth Applicant: Greg Criner, Lamar Outdoor Advertising Address: 922 Barber Street Description: West side of Barber Street, between East 9th and East 10th Streets Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the billboard provisions of Section 36-556 to allow increased height for an existing billboard. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Billboard Site Proposed Use of Property: Billboard Site STAFF REPORT A. Public Works issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 922 Barber Street is occupied by billboard owned by Lamar Outdoor Advertising. The billboard is a two-sided monopole type sign. It is located near the center of the lot. The billboard has an area of 14 feet by 48 feet, and a height of 34 feet-6 inches. The applicant proposes to increase the height of the billboard by 20 feet. The overall height of the billboard is proposed to be 54 feet-6 inches. The increased sign height is proposed due to the fact that the Highway Department recently installed a public information sign to the south along the east side of the interstate. The applicant claims that the new highway sign obstructs the visibility of the billboard. JUNE 25, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T. Section 36-556(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum billboard height of 35 feet in C-3 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the billboard height to be increased to 54 feet-6 inches. No other changes to the existing billboard are proposed. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. Staff does not view the request as reasonable. Staff estimates the new informational sign placed by the Highway Department to be approximately 250 yards to the south of the existing billboard. Although the billboard may have some reduced visibility as viewed by vehicles approaching the sign, staff believes there is adequate area to view the billboard after passing the highway sign. Staff believes the increased billboard height could have an adverse impact on the adjacent properties and the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested billboard height variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 30, 2007) Greg Criner and Tom Gibbons were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Greg Criner addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that the Highway Department has no maximum height for billboards as the City does. He explained the visibility issues associated with the billboard. He noted that there had been no negative comments from adjacent property owners. He explained that the increased billboard height would improve the visibility of the commercial building immediately to the north. James Van Dover asked whose view is obstructed. Mr. Criner explained that it would be drivers on 1-30. The issue of visibility was discussed. Chairman Francis noted that the visibility of the billboard was obstructed only a minimal amount. The issues of visibility and raising the north side of the billboard were discussed further. Tom Gibbons addressed the Board in support of the application. He briefly discussed the issue of visibility for both sides of the billboard. Robert Winchester asked if the Highway Department sign would cause a loss of revenue. Mr. Criner indicated that it would. Chris Wilbourn asked if the Highway Department had been approached about moving their informational sign. Vice -Chair Burruss noted that the Highway Department's willingness to work with the applicant was an important issue. This issue was discussed further. J U N E 25, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T. The issue of deferring the application to allow the applicant time to work with the Highway Department was discussed. Mr. Criner noted that a deferral would be acceptable. There was a motion to defer the application to the June 25, 2007 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 25, 2007) Greg Criner and Tom Gibbons were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Staff noted that the applicant had submitted a letter from the State Highway Department, noting the highway sign could not be moved. Greg Criner addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained the Highway Department review of the issue, noting the sign could not be moved. He explained that the building immediately to the north would have better visibility with the increased billboard height. He explained that the requested billboard height was what was needed for the best visibility. Tom Gibbons also addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that there were existing signs in the area as tall as the requested billboard height. He stated that he knew of no objectors to the proposed sign height. He also explained that billboards needed more visibility time for oncoming traffic. Vice -Chair Burruss asked about another billboard in the area. Mr. Gibbons noted that it was not over 40 feet in height. James Van Dover asked how the lower billboard affected the owner profit wise. Mr. Gibbons explained the marketability of the sign with respect to visibility. The issue was briefly discussed. Mr. Gibbons noted that the area of the sign could be reduced if the height variance were approved. Vice -Chair Burruss asked about sign lighting. Mr. Gibbons stated the lighting would not change. Chairman Francis noted non-support of the application. He explained that the existing sign had some visibility from 1-30 and the on -ramp to 1-30 from 1-630. He noted raising the sign would have an adverse impact on the adjacent properties. Robert Winchester expressed concern with the distance from which a billboard with increased height could be seen. He noted it could create a safety hazard. There was a motion to approve the application. The motion failed with a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent. The application was denied.