BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT Date: February 2, 2015

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT Date: February 2, 2015"

Daniela Neal
6 years ago
Views:

1 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT Date: February 2, 2015 CASE NUMBER 5946 APPLICANT NAME VARIANCE REQUEST ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT ZONING AREA OF PROPERTY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMENTS Wrico Signs Inc (South side of Airport Boulevard, 360 ± East of Montlimar Drive) SIGNAGE: Sign Variance to allow off-premise signage for a business located at 3673 Airport Boulevard. SIGNAGE: The Zoning Ordinance requires all signage to be on the same site as the business advertised. B-3, Commercial Business District 158,600 Square Feet (2 Lots) No comments. CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT District 5 ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a Sign Variance to allow offpremise signage for a business located at 3673 Airport Boulevard; the Zoning Ordinance requires all signage to be on the same site as the business advertised. The site is apart of a Planned Unit Development which includes the adjacent property located at 3679 Airport Boulevard, directly behind the subject site. The site is utilized as a restaurant. The business has changed its sign logo within the past few years, thus resulting in a new wall sign and the removal of the cabinet of the single tenant, on premise freestanding sign. As the applicant has removed the previously approved freestanding sign located on his/her site, they now wish to place the pylon signage for the business on the adjacent property s freestanding pylon sign; thus the reason for this application. The applicant states the following reasons to explain the need for the variance: The trees that have been planted in the right of way in front of Baumhower's Restaurant have grown and obstructed the sign and obstructed the sign that existed on Baumhower's property at 3673 Airport blvd. The freestanding sign has been removed. The underbrush was

2 cleared but that did not help. The tree ordinance will not allow for the tree tops to be trimmed. The sign ordinance will not allow for the sign to be raised. The multi tenant freestanding structure on the a adjacent property that shares a property line with Baumhower's Restaurant who also owns the property Baumhower's Restaurant is on has agreed to allow Baumhower's Restaurant to install tenant panels on their existing freestanding. Allowing Baumhower's Restaurant to install tenant panels on the structure will not take away available space for the existing or future tenants at 3679 Airport Blvd. The Zoning Ordinance states that no variance shall be granted where economics are the basis for the application; and, unless the Board is presented with sufficient evidence to find that the variance will not be contrary to the public interest, and that special conditions exist such that a literal enforcement of the Ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship. The Ordinance also states that a variance should not be approved unless the spirit and intent of the Ordinance is observed and substantial justice done to the applicant and the surrounding neighborhood. Variances are not intended to be granted frequently. The applicant must clearly show the Board that the request is due to very unusual characteristics of the property and that it satisfies the variance standards. What constitutes unnecessary hardship and substantial justice is a matter to be determined from the facts and circumstances of each application. The purpose of the Sign Regulation Provisions is to promote the economic well-being of the entire Mobile community by creating a favorable physical image, to afford the business community an equal and fair opportunity to advertise and promote products and services, and to protect the right of the citizens to enjoy Mobile s natural scenic beauty. It appears that the hardship presented in this case is site recognition. It appears that the sign is not visible due to the existing frontage trees that are now obstructing the on-premise freestanding sign. The applicant has voluntarily removed the top of the existing freestanding sign; however, the freestanding pole still remains on the site. The existing freestanding pylon sign located on the adjacent site is owned by the same property owner as the subject site. The pylon has a total of 4 tenant spaces located on the freestanding sign, only one of which is utilized by an active business. It should be noted that there are discrepancies between the July 2014 site plan and the December 2003 survey that was submitted for staffs review. The handwritten word sign used to illustrate the location of the existing pylon sign on the survey is not depicted in the correct location. The site plan does not depicted the existing post where the previous freestanding sign was displayed nor does the site plan depict the property lines separating Lot 1 and 2 of the Spanish Plaza Subdivision. Therefore, neither the survey or site plan reflects current conditions. The applicant is correct in stating that the tree ordinance will not allow for the tree tops to be trimmed; nor will the sign ordinance allow for the sign to be raised. It appears that when the initial site plan was developed the growth of the frontage trees was not taken into consideration. The trees will continue to grow and continue to obstruct any pole-top signage - 2 -

3 placed at the previous location of the sign. Also, the survey illustrates an existing 10 water and sewer easement that runs along the front property line of the site, thus hindering the sign to be relocated closer to the street to enhance visibility. It should be noted that a monument sign would not be blocked by the tree canopy, due to its being lower to the ground. However, a monument sign would not necessarily create better visibility for the business; nor would it allow a passerby s the ability to locate the restaurant from a distance as easily as the pylon freestanding sign. Therefore staff is of the opinion that a legitimate hardship is presented and the application should be recommended for approval. RECOMMENDATION fact for Approval: Staff recommends to the Board the following findings of 1) approving the variance will not be contrary to the public interest in that the sign location will not take away available space for the existing or future tenants for the adjacent site; 2) special conditions appear to exist, such as the frontage trees which obstruct the visibility of the previous location of the sign, such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the chapter will result in an unnecessary hardship; and 3) the spirit of the chapter shall be observed and substantial justice shall be done to the surrounding neighborhood by granting the variance because the proposed sign will be located on a freestanding pylon along with other signs from tenants located within the site and will not be a detriment to the neighborhood. Therefore, this application is recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1) submission of a revised site plan to include the property lines for both sites; 2) removal of the existing freestanding pole; 3) submission of a sign permit application; 4) application for an electrical permit, if illuminated; and 5) full compliance with all other municipal codes and ordinances

4 - 4 -

5 - 5 -

6 - 6 -

7 - 7 -

8 - 8 -

9 - 9 -

APPLICATION NUMBER A REQUEST FOR

APPLICATION NUMBER A REQUEST FOR APPLICATION NUMBER 5371 A REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE TO ALLOW A THIRD WALL SIGN (87 SQUARE FEET) FOR A BUSINESS ON A SINGLE TENANT SITE; THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OF TWO WALL SIGNS ON A SINGLE