HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-9334 Staff AnalysisJULY 30, 2018
ITEM NO.: A
File No.:
Owner:
Applicant:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Z-9334
VPV Properties LLC
V2 Sign Company
10700 N. Rodney Parham Road
NW corner of 1-430 and N. Rodney Parham Road
C-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section
36-555 to permit a free standing/ground-sign which exceeds
160 sq. ft. in area and which has a setback of less than 5 ft.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Multi -Business Commercial Shopping Center
Proposed Use of Property: Multi -Business Commercial Shopping Center
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No comments on this sign variance
B. Staff Analysis:
The Village at Pleasant Valley Shopping Center is located at the northwest corner
of the 1-430/Rodney Parham interchange. A concrete retaining wall extends along
the majority of the perimeter of the property where adjacent to the southbound 1-430
exit ramp to Rodney Parham Road. The applicants are proposing to place
illuminated signage on the retaining wall identifying the Shopping Center and its
tenants. The area of the proposed signage is in the range of 500 sq. ft. and the
retaining wall has a setback of 1-2 feet from the property line. Section 36-555 states
the maximum size of a ground sign in commercial districts is 160 sq. ft. and those
signs are to have a setback from all property lines of no less than 5 ft. The applicants
are requesting variances from these two provisions. They are requesting the
proposed sign in lieu of any additional ground signs on this perimeter of the property.
Staff cannot support the requested variances due to the nature of the proposed sign.
There have been instances where staff has supported larger signs in lieu of multiple
signs and staff has also supported reduced setbacks. However, in this case, staff is
not supportive of allowing the use of the retaining wall as signage. Staff is concerned
that allowing this proposed sign could lead to similar requests; recognizing that no
action of the Board sets a precedent. In general, the code discourages placement
JULY 30, 2018
ITEM NO.: A
of signs on fences or walls. Additionally, the placement of illuminated signage in
such close proximity to traffic on the interstate exit ramp could be a traffic safety
concern.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the variances.
Board of Adjustment (June 25, 2018)
Staff informed the Board that on June 21, 2018 the applicant submitted a letter
requesting this application be deferred to the July 30, 2018 agenda. Staff supported the
deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the July 30, 2018 agenda.
The vote was 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The application was deferred.
Staff Update:
After careful re -consideration and meeting with the applicant, staff is now in support of
the requested sign variances. Staff's support is based primarily on the fact that the
amount of signage proposed does not exceed the amount of ground -mounted signage
that the ordinance would allow along the east property line (1-430 frontage). At least five
(5) ground -mounted signs could be allowed along the east property line, with a
cumulative sign area of 800 square feet. Although the proposed signage will be located
on a "wall", it will essentially function as a monument -type sign. Additionally, there is a
rather wide right-of-way area between the wall and the south bound traffic lanes on I-
430. The sign on the wall should have adequate distance/setback from the interstate as
to not create a traffic safety issue. Staff believes the proposed signage on the existing
wall should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
Revised Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign area and sign setback variances,
subject to there being no additional ground -mounted signs along the east property line
(1-430 frontage).
Board of Adjustment
(July 30, 2018)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item
and a recommendation of approval as outlined in the "staff recommendation" above.
There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and
approved as recommended by staff, including all staff comments and conditions. The
vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
0