Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8507-A Staff AnalysisJANUARY 25, 2010 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-8507-A Owner: Robert Berry Applicant: Terry Burruss Address: 814 West 71h Street Description: North side of West 7th Street, between State and Izard Streets Zoned: UU Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested, appealing the Planning staff's interpretation of the definition of a "roof sign". 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. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 814 West 7th Street contains a one-story brick commercial building which is currently vacant. The property is located on the north side of West 71h 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 recently submitted a variance application for a new projecting sign to be placed on the front of the building (Item A on this agenda, Z-8507). The new projecting sign would identify a new tattoo shop which is planning to occupy the building. The new projecting sign is approximately 60 square feet in area and would replace the two (2) existing wall signs on the building. JANUARY 25, 2010 ITEM NO.: 3 (Con't. After reviewing the application, staff informed the applicant that the variance could not go forward based on the fact the proposed projecting sign was also classified as a "roof sign", a prohibited sign type. This was based on the fact that the proposed projecting sign extends above the roofline of the building (flat roof construction). The applicant cannot seek a variance for a sign which is prohibited by ordinance. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an administrative appeal, appealing the Planning Staff's interpretation of the definition of a "roof sign". The applicant does not agree with staff's classification of the proposed sign as a roof sign. Please see the attached letter from the applicant and sketches for additional information. Section 36-530 of the City's Zoning Ordinance defines "roof sign" as follows: "Roof sign means any sign erected over or on the roof of a building." The word "over" is defined by Webster's dictionary as follows: .1over...ln or at a position above or higher than"..."up to or higher than the level or height of'. The word "above" is defined by Webster's dictionary as follows: 9. above ... Over or higher than" It is staff's opinion that the proposed projecting sign should be classified as a "roof sign" based on the fact that it extends "higher than" the roof of the building at 814 West 7th Street. The proposed projecting sign is approximately 7.75 feet higher than the flat roof of the building. This is how staff has been interpreting the issue of roof signs since the inception of the ordinance. Section 36-543 of the code is the section which prohibits "roof signs", and reads as follows: "Section 36-543. Prohibited signs and sales promotion devices. The following type signs are prohibited in all districts unless otherwise noted: (1) Abandoned signs. (2) Banners, pennants, festoons, searchlights, except as allowed in section 36-557, subsection (d). (3) Signs imitating or resembling official traffic or government signs or signals. JANUARY 25, 2010 ITEM NO.: 3 (Con't. (4) Snipe signs or signs attached to trees, telephone poles, fences, public benches, or placed on public property or public right-of-way. (5) Vehicular signs- (6) Trailer or temporary signs that do not meet the standards for freestanding permanent signs. (7) Roof signs, or any sign that is not mounted on a vertical surface. (8) Rotating signs. (9) Off -premises signs except as specifically permitted elsewhere in this article." The applicant is appealing staff's interpretation of the ordinance and labeling of the proposed projecting sign as a "roof sign". The applicant is requesting that the Board of Adjustment review and overturn staffs interpretation of the ordinance, and not classify the proposed projecting sign as a "roof sign". BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 25, 2010) Terry Burruss and Robert Berry were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application for administrative appeal. Terry Burruss addressed the Board in support of the application. He discussed the definition of the word "over" as used in the definition of a roof sign. He noted that the proposed sign is a projecting sign and not a roof sign. James Van Dover explained that he thought the issue was with the projecting sign being located over the canopy on the front of the building. This issue was briefly discussed. The definition of roof sign and projecting sign were discussed. The issue of marquee signs was discussed. The issue of canopy and other building attachments was discussed. The issue of parapet walls was also discussed. Scott Smith asked why the ordinance prohibited roof signs. Dana Carney, city staff, explained that the City Board of Directors passed the ordinance many years ago. He explained that issues of aesthetics, limiting visual JANUARY 25, 2010 ITEM NO.: 3 Con't. clutter and the amount of signs deemed acceptable were probable reasons for prohibiting roof signs and other sign types. This issue was discussed. James Van Dover noted that there were no means of preserving what the City Directors considered at the time the ordinance was passed. The issue of roof sign was discussed further. Robert Berry addressed the Board. He discussed the design and preservation of the building at 814 West 7th Street. He explained the need for the sign and sign design. There was a motion to approve the applicant's requested appeal. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. The appeal was approved.