Loading...
Fax to City Attor.-attchd signsPLEASE DEU~ THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO: · ~ No. ~¥' a,~mo~ ~~ '~~ DIRECt DIAL: ~4 NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER IF YOU ~ N~ RECEI~ ALL OF ~g PAGe. PI.~ CALL BACK ~ ~N ~iBI.A, PL~AS~ DIAl- DIRF~ TO ~ PA~N S~ING ~S FAX BY ~ DIRE~ DIAL ~BER I.I~ED. ~ YOU, warelmuse f~/lity, with on-premis~ re~idem4~l us~ bl~ a~m~mm~ pmamme2, with special conditions for the p~ located along the sou~ side of ~ Rosd, ~ feet East of MacAnhur Boulevard, Coppell, Dallas County, Te=~, said property ~ more ~ly de,scn'oed in Exln'bit 'A; lilached hereto and made a parl hereof for all SECTION 7,. That' the . change -in zoning fo~-SpeciaI'U~e~Permit-foFthe.'..9~.°f 1. If Valley Ranch Baptht Church does not develop, then ti~ w~ and sanitary sewer lines must be extended from thek exhfiuE location to the property. 2. The property shall have on-site 4. -- . Extu'bit 'C' at~ached hereto, and comply with the requirements of the City of Coppell Strcetscape gu/delines. 7. That the screening shall be constructed as shown in the Landscape Plan in Exhibit 'C~. ;nformatlon relevant to zoning case This ease has a long history that warrants additional review by Council before staff concludes with a recommendation. This information is submitted to Council because Planning Commission felt Council was the appropriate body to deal with this issue. Specifically, when this mini- warehouse use was originally approved, there were certain comments made by the applicant which suggested an end product somewhat different than the facility in place today. There were statements regarding the architectural appearance of the building, landscaping, and screening among others. Perhaps the most sensitive issue relates to a question of signage on the gables of the building-signage which was never discussed at either the Commission or Council hearing. To be more direct, the sign panels at each end of the caretakers quarters which advertise the self storage and climate control aspects of this facility were never approved by either the Planning Commission or City Council. We have received legal advise in other S.U.P. cases which basically stated that if the sign issue was not specifically addressed, or if there was nothing in the written ordinance suggesting certain sign development standards, then the provisions of the sign ordinance prevailed, and an applicant would be allowed to construct any legal sign on the property. In reviewing the ordinance approving this mini-warehouse S.U.P. however, staff is of the opinion that signage was addressed and illegal signs are on the face of the building. We base our opinion on two 1. Condition #8 of the written ordinance states, in part:"...property shall be developed...only in accordance with the...Elevafion Plan attached...". (underlining added) 2. Exhibit ~CH (the Elevation Plan) clearly shows no signage on the end gables of the warehouse quarters building. In reviewing this request for expansion of the self-storage $.U.P., staff endeavored to recommend approval of the enlargement conditioned upon the applicant bringing the existing facility into code conformance; that is, removal of the illegal signage. During the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant (Mr. Bob Goss) adamantly refused to bring the signs into conformance, and produced a letter signed by the Director of Planning which allegedly stated the Director's support of the existing facility including signage, which the Director denied. The bottom line here is staff believes there are illegal signs on the face of the existing self- storage caretakers quarters, and will not support any additional enlargement to the facility until the signs are removed. The applicant is claiming that he put the signs up with a building permit, therefore the signs are legal and he will not take the signs down. Without addressing whether these signs are legal or not (staff will brief the Council prior to the public hearing) we can not support this request until the existing structure is in conformance with the current ordinance. This case has a long history that warrants additional review by Council before staff concludes with a recommendation. This information is submitted to Council because Planning Commission felt Council was the appropriate body to deal with this issue. Specifically, when this mini- warehouse use was originally approved, there were certain comments made by the applicant which suggested an end product somewhat different than the facility in place today. There were statements regarding the architectural appearance of the building, landscaping, and screening among others. Perhaps the most sensitive issue relates to a question of signage on the gables of the building--signage which was never discussed at either the Commission or Council hearing. To be more direct, the sign panels at each end of the caretakers quarters which advertise the self storage and climate control aspects of this facility were never approved by either the Planning Commission or City Council. We have received legal advise in other S.U.P. cases which basically stated that if the sign issue was not specifically addressed, or if there was nothing in the written ordinance suggesting certain sign development standards, then the provisions of the sign ordinance prevailed, and an applicant would be allowed to construct any legal sign on the property. In reviewing the ordinance approving this mini-warehouse S.U.P. however, staff is of the opinion that signage was addressed and illegal signs are on the face of the building. We base our opinion on two facts: 1. Condition //8 of the written ordinance states, in part:"...property shall be developed...only in accordance with the...Elevation Plan attached...". 2. Exhibit "C" (the Elevation Plan) clearly shows no signage on the end gables of the warehouse quarters building. In reviewing this request for expansion of the self-storage $.U.P., staff endeavored to recommend approval of the enlargement conditioned upon the applicant bringing the existing facility into code conformance; that is, removal of the illegal signage. During the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant (Mr. Bob Goss) adamantly refused to bring the signs into conformance, and produced a letter signed by the Director of Planning which allegedly stated the Director's support of the existing facility including signage, which the Director denied. The bottom line here is staff believes there are illegal signs on the face of the existing self- storage caretakers quarters, and will not support any additional enlargement to the facility until the signs are removed. The applicant is claiming that he put the signs up with a building permit, therefore the signs are legal and he will not take the signs down. A legal opinion is forthcoming regarding the legality (or illegality) of these signs, and staff will brief Council at the public hearing. goss