Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8507 Staff AnalysisMARCH 29, 2010 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Owner: Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-8507 Robert Berry Terry Burruss 814 W: 7th Street North side of W. 7th Street, between State and Izard Streets. UU Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-553 to allow a projecting sign which exceeds the maximum area allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Commercial Building Proposed Use of Property: Tattoo Shop STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (Bennie Nicolo, 371-4818) for the private improvements located in the right-of-way. B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 814 W. 7th Street contains a one-story brick commercial building which is currently vacant. The property is located on the north side of W. 7th Street, between State and Izard Streets. The building was previously occupied by Eaton Beauty Stylist College. There is on -street parking in this general area which serves the commercial building. There are two (2) existing wall signs on the building which previously identified the Eaton College use. The wall sign on the front (south) of the building is approximately 15 square feet in area and the wall sign on the east building facade is approximately 48 square feet in area. The applicant proposes to remove the two (2) existing wall signs and replace them with one (1) projecting sign on the front of the building to identify a new tattoo shop use for the building. The proposed projecting sign will be five (5) feet wide and eight (8) feet tall (40 square feet). The applicant originally submitted a proposal for a 60 square foot projecting sign, but has amended the size as noted. It will be located 1 V-1" above the sidewalk along W. 7th Street. The sign will extend approximately 3 feet 7 inches above the roof of the building. MARCH 29, 2010 ITEM NO.: A (Can't. At the January 25, 2010 meeting the Board of Adjustment determined that the proposed sign is not a "roof sign" as defined by ordinance. Section 36-553(a)(2)b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a projecting sign with a maximum area of 12 square feet for this UU zoned property. The ordinance would typically allow approximately 82 square feet of wall signage for the south fagade of this building. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the 40 square foot projecting sign as proposed. The applicant has noted that the proposed projecting sign will be in -lieu of any wall signs. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff's support is based on the fact the Board determined this sign not to be a roof sign and the applicant agreeing not to place any wall signs on the front building fagade. Staff views the request as reasonable. The 40 square foot projecting sign will not be out of character with other signs in the UU downtown zoning district. There are other projecting signs larger than 12 square feet in area in and near the River Market District of Downtown Little Rock. Staff believes the proposed projecting sign will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The projecting sign must not exceed 40 square feet in area. 2. There are to be no wall signs attached to the building. 3. A sign permit must be obtained for the projecting sign. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 30, 2009) The applicant was not present. Staff recommended the application be deferred to the December 21, 2009 agenda, to allow the applicant time to address the "roof sign" issue. The Chairman placed the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the December 21, 2009 agenda. The Consent Agenda was approved with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was deferred. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 21, 2009) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Board that the applicant had requested deferral of the item to the January 25, 2010 meeting. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and deferred to the January 25, 2010 meeting by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. MARCH 29, 2010 ITEM NO.: A (Con't. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 25, 2010) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred to the February 22, 2010 Agenda. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and deferred to the February 22, 2010 meeting by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 22, 2010) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred to the March 29, 2010 Agenda. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and deferred to the March 29, 2010 meeting by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 29, 2010) Terry Burruss and Robert Berry were present, representing the application. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. There were no objectors present. Vice -Chair Van Dover made a brief statement regarding justification for the variance. He noted that he could not support the application based on the percent of increase in size for the proposed projecting sign. Terry Burruss noted that an existing projecting sign at another location would be used for this location. He stated that there would be two (2) businesses at this location. Scott Smith asked about hardship with respect to this application as opposed to other variances such as building setbacks. Debra Weldon, City Attorney, quoted the hardship section of the ordinance with respect to the Board of Adjustment. The issue of hardship was briefly discussed. Dana Carney, City Planning staff, addressed the Board with respect to hardship and how it should be addressed. Scott Smith asked about the size of the proposed projecting sign. Mr. Burruss explained how the projecting sign at another location would be modified for the two (2) businesses at 814 W. 7th Street. Chairman Winchester asked where the existing projecting sign was located. Mr. Burruss noted that it was just to the west on W. 71h Street. There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. The application was approved.