06 - Boards & Commissions - Minutes (2)

Home Browse Search

Section 4.10.003(e) of the Sign Ordinance and prohibiting the approval a sky sign outside of the Historical District. Motion carried 4:0. Motion was made by William Sanders, seconded by Larry Walker to deny the variance of Article 4.10, Section 4.10.004(x)(1) of the Sign Ordinance and prohibiting a sign to extend above the roofline of the building or more than 12" from the building wall. Motion carried 4:0. Motion was made by William Sanders, seconded by Larry Walker to deny the variance of Article 4. 10, Section 4.10.009(a) of the Sign Ordinance and prohibiting a sign not designed, constructed and inspected in accordance to the Sign Ordinance. Motion carried 4:0. Motion was made by Larry Walker, seconded by Jerry Haning to deny the variance of Article 4. 10, Section 4.10.009(b) of the Sign Ordinance prohibiting a sign not designed and constructed to comply with the provisions of the building code for use of materials, loads and stresses to withstand a wind pressure of thirty (30) pounds per square foot. Motion carried 4:0. Motion was made by Larry Walker, seconded by William Sanders to deny the variance of Article 4. 10, Section 4.10.081 of the Sign Ordinance prohibiting a permanent sign to be installed in the City without first securing a permit from the building official. Motion carried 4:0. The following additional findings were adopted as the reasons, for this denial. They are as follows: (A) There was no unique condition or feature of the property which is not generally common to other properties, where literal compliance with this article would cause unnecessary hardship. (B) The granting of the variance will violate the spirit or the intent of these articles. (C) The condition or feature which creates the need for the variance resulted from the property owner's own actions. In the board's denial of the request, the following additional findings were adopted as the reasons for this denial. They are as follows: (A) There are no known unique conditions or features regarding Mr. Coyier's building that would require a "sky sign" versus an allowable sign per this Article, thus no known hardships. (B) The Article clearly prohibits "sky signs" inthis situation and roof structures are not normally designed with the purpose of supporting an added wind load caused by such a roof -mounted sign, thus engineering should have at least been performed per the building code. Mr. Coyier has informed staff that the sign was not engineered. (C) Mr. Coyier installed the sign prior to having sought a building permit, which would have given City Staff an opportunity to address this prior to expenditure of funds and installation of the sign. In addition, Mr. Coyier, via a license contractor had in fact properly permitted and installed two separate signs on his building and property prior to this situation. These