05/04/2021 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Applicant explained that he believes that there is a unique condition to the property since the existing building houses two storefronts facing the loop and his wife's storefront is on the side of the building. A person looking at the building straight from the frontage cannot see the wife's business location on the side. Applicate indicated that the building owner offered to include a storefront access for the wife's business; therefore, according to Applicant, he did not inflict the hardship on himself. Additionally, Applicant noted that the sign structure (frame) had been in place since October, and no City inspector has said anything about it, even though there have been repeated visits. Because no one from the City raised the sign issue, Applicant felt there was not an issue with having it there. Applicant also believes that the sign does not extend past the roofline of the building; therefore, he does not think the sign structure meets the Ordinance definition. According to the Applicant the sign is structurally sound and when the building owner put up the structure he had modelled it after the Paris Inn sign. If Applicant has to remove his sign, then the Paris Inn should be required to remove its sign. Applicant offers that if he has to remove the sign, no one will be able to see (locate) his wife's business, thus creating a hardship. Board Member Chris Fitzgerald, clarified that he was unable to attend the last meeting, but understands that the structure had been in place since October and the signage was later added to it which is what prompted the City's attention. Chairperson RuthAnn Alsobrook, asked the Applicant if he knew that his wife's business was going to be in the same building, why he didn't plan for a sign on the front of the building with his business? Melissa Coyier, of 4075 Vista Ridge Drive and wife of Applicant, responded by telling the Board that the business Nu -Start Nutrition has restrictions on the sizes and types of signs. The Chairperson mentioned that at the previous meeting a major concern was the safety of the sign and ensuring that it isn't a structure that would be blown away. Melissa Coyier responded that she went to the store to check on the sign during the last windstorm to make sure it would not blow away and "it didn't budge at all." She also stated that she had driven around town and looked at other sky signs and some had moved. At the end of her presentation Melissa Coyier left the hearing/ building stating that she wanted to withdraw the. application. However, she did not file the application nor sign it, so the withdrawal was determined to be ineffective. No one else spoke in favor or opposition. Public hearing was declared closed. Board Member Larry Walker stated that with more information than last month's meeting he has more understanding of why Applicant needed the variances. However, he does agree that the sign should be safe. Board Member Walker also believes that if the building has been previously inspected and given a Certificate of Occupancy then the sign was or should have been signed off on as well since it has been there since October. The City Attorney clarified that there was no inspection requested for the sign and even though