Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 07/16/2003MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 16, 2003 RECEIVED IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date _ ✓0-�5 By Time a PRESENT: Dana Mills, M.D., Chairman 0 Members Jose Garcia 0 Alternate #1 Jerry Hutchins 0 Alternate #3 James McNeil 0 Alternate #a Michael Norrie 0 Council Liaison David A. Clark, Director of Community Development 0 City Staff Paul Stillson, Planner II 0 Diane Parker, Secretary 0 ABSENT: Willa Burgess 0 Thomas Cross 0 Les Seipel 0 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Mills called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the May 21, 2003 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved by the Board as submitted. III. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Case V 03 -06 Request for an Interpretation of the Sign Ordinance Applicant ....... ............................... City staff Requested Action ........................ Interpretation of regulations concerning signs mounted on building walls in the CBD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1 Purpose ........ ............................... To clarify the applicable standards for this type of signage Property ........... ............................ 726 Scott and 812 Ninth Street Zoning .......... ............................... Central Business District zoning Commentary. Recently, City staff received two requests to mount signs on buildings in the Central Business District. In both cases, staff encountered difficulties in applying the sign regulations to downtown buildings built on the property line. The two requests are as follows: 1. At 812 Ninth Street, SBC has requested a permit to attach a 422 square foot logo to the side of their building at a height of 90 feet above the ground. This sign exceeds the height limit in Note 5 (of the Sign Ordinance) and does not meet the setback requirements. 2. At 726 Scott, the owner of this building has requested a permit to attach individual letters (128 sq. ft.) to the elevator equipment room at the top of the building. The letters may be closer than 10 foot to the edge of the roof (property line) and because of the size of the sign, it may not meet setback requirements in Note 5. In staffs opinion, the height and size and setbacks provisions of the sign ordinance do not address the characteristics of signs mounted on buildings in the downtown. Below are some issues staff identified: Table 6741, Note 5 of the Sign Ordinance contains the restrictions on height, area, and setback for general business signs: If located within ten (10) feet of the property line or the back of the curb, whichever is greater, the sign face area shall not exceed eighty (80) sq. ft. or thirty (30) feet in height. If located at least ten (10) feet from the property line or the back of the curb, whichever is greater, but less than twenty -five (25) feet from the property line, the sign face area shall not exceed one hundred and twenty (120) sq. ft. nor exceed fifty (50) feet in height. If located twenty -five (25) feet or more from the property line, the sign face area shall not exceed nine hundred (900) sq. ft. nor exceed eighty (80) feet in height. In staff's opinion, the height regulations in Note 5 pertain to freestanding signs rather than building- mounted signs for the following reasons: 1. Wall mounted signs do not have a stated height limit. According to the sign ordinance definition, a wall sign is one mounted on a building. The regulations in Section 6720 (C) state that wall signs cannot extend above the building. No other limit is stated for the height of a wall sign. In staffs opinion, the ordinance implies that the height of a wall sign is limited to the height of the building. 2. Roof signs' heights are measured beginning at the level of the roof. Any BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2 signage above the building would have to be classified as a roof sign, with the height measured from the top of the roof. It is possible to exceed the free - standing sign height limit with a roof sign. Sign Setbacks and Area — Note 5 allows signs to become larger as the setback from the property line increases. When a sign is10 feet or less from the property line, the sign face can be no larger than 80 square feet. Where setbacks are over 25 feet, the maximum sign area can be 900 square feet (on- premise sign only). The purpose of this regulation is to preserve open space along the edge of the roadway. Many buildings downtown are constructed on the property line, and there is no opportunity to achieve any setback. Under Note 5, signage without a setback is limited to 80 square feet. Staff considers that both the size and height restrictions were intended for sites where signs could be setback from the property line. The main goal of Note 5 was to preserve a visual corridor along the side of the street. Staff proposes the following interpretation: 1. The setback requirements do not apply to roof signs or wall signs, when installed on buildings built on a property line. Reason: there is no identifiable visual corridor to preserve and there is no way to set back a sign mounted on a building. 2. Height requirements for wall signs should be the same as the building height. Reason: this is implied from the definition of a wall sign. Roof signs would be subject to heights measured from the top of the roof to the top of the sign. 3. The maximum area of a sign mounted on a building is 900 square feet, based on the maximum allowable sign area. This is the same as the maximum on a freestanding sign with a setback of 25 feet or more. Reason: a setback cannot be achieved on a sign mounted on a building. Staff is bringing this matter to the Board for an interpretation to review the staff's position and interpretation. Recommendation: The Board's interpretation of the ordinance would be used by staff to evaluate future requests for roof - mounted signs and signs mounted on buildings constructed on property lines. Chairman Mills asked if the existing signs on buildings pre -date the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Clark stated that he could not recall any building signs being constructed in the last ten years. Mr. Stillson agreed that the City has not had a request for a downtown sign until recently. There have been some paintings on downtown buildings but nothing has been erected that required electricity or a building permit. Mr. Clark stated that perhaps the Zoning Ordinance needs modification to hasten sign projects, rather than waiting four to six weeks to be presented to this Board. When asked about the setback requirements for the sign, Mr. Stillson stated that most buildings are not built on the property line and the sign standards would apply. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3 The variance procedure was discussed along with other approval options. Councilor Norrie suggested that the Board consider the decision for these two requests then have the Planning and Zoning Commission review the sign ordinance. Mr. Hutchins made a motion to limit the decisions to the two cases presented to the Board. Mr. McNeil seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval. Chairman Mills inquired about older buildings undergoing renovation. Mr. Clark stated existing signs would be grandfathered; however, if the sign is changed they might be subject to design review by the Landmarks Commission. Sign Variance for SBC 812 Ninth Street Mr. David Lambert, representative for SBC, was sworn in by Mr. Stillson. He explained that the signage is part of their national branding efforts. He presented a simulated photograph of the proposed sign depicting eight -foot letters that are halo - illuminated or internally lit with a neon blue light projecting from the rear surface onto the building. At night, it produces a glow or halo effect. The objective of this sign is freeway exposure. Mr. McNeil made a motion to approve this sign as submitted to concur with staffs interpretation of the sign ordinance. Mr. Hutchins seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval. Sign Variance for Ramada Hotel 726 Scott Street at Eighth Street Mr. Stillson stated the applicant, Mr. Kahn, is requesting a sign to be located on top of the building on the elevator structure which is setback by ten feet on one side and twenty feet on the other side. The sign will be 16'x 18' (128 sq. ft.) with lettering on all sides of the elevator structure. The objective is for the sign to be seen from the freeway. The setback on top of this building is less than the standard; the number of signs (four) could also be a problem. Chairman Mills noted that the four signs do not exceed the 900 sq. ft. limit. This renovated hotel will open as a Ramada with a restaurant on the first floor. Mr. Garcia made a motion to approve this sign as submitted to concur with staffs interpretation of the sign ordinance. Mr. McNeil seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval. Review of the Sign Ordinance Mr. Hutchins made a motion to request that the Planning and Zoning Commission review the sign ordinance as it relates to signs located on the exterior walls of buildings. Mr. McNeil seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4 IV. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 2:03 p.m. Dana Mills, Chairman BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGES Date