Title
Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request by Elwiss Soldevila of Wilo Signs Appealing the Denial of a Sign Permit to Allow a 118 Square Foot, 24 Foot Tall, Illuminated, Muiti-Tenant Shopping Center Sign, in Addition to the Existing Shopping Center Sign, Located on the Northwest Corner of North McDonald Street (State Highway 5) and Smith Street, at the McKinney Plaza Shopping Center.
Summary
MEETING DATE: May 17, 2011
DEPARTMENT: Development Services - Building Inspections
CONTACT: Bennie Reed, Chief Building Official
Garry Adams, Assistant Building Official
Jeff Harris, Plans Examiner
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
• Staff recommends denial of the applicant’s sign variance to allow a second pole sign on the subject property. The applicant is proposing a 118 square foot, 24 foot tall, Illuminated, multi-tenant sign, in addition to the existing shopping center sign, located on the northwest corner of North McDonald Street (State Highway 5) and Smith Street, at the McKinney Plaza Shopping Center.
ITEM SUMMARY:
• The applicant is proposing two pole signs for the subject property. Both signs would be on the McDonald Street frontage. The Sign Ordinance states that on lots with multiple right-of-way frontages, detached ground or pole signs are permitted, one per street frontage.
o The applicant is requesting a variance to add a 118 square foot, 24’ tall, illuminated, Multi - Tenant sign, in addition to the existing pole sign along McDonald.
o The applicant’s request is based on the assertion that the existing McKinney Plaza sign is a landmark for the McDonald corridor.
o As proposed, the applicants request does not conform with the City of McKinney Sign Ordinance. Granting the variance for multiple pole signs along a street frontage would set a precedent for other similar locations.
• Should the City Council approve the applicant’s request, other similarly situated properties are likely to request a variance in the future. This is the reason that variance approvals typically are based upon a unique circumstance of the property rather than a waiver to the required standard.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
• Signage that does not conform with the Sign Ordinance may seek relief through two means, meritorious exception or variance.
o Meritorious Exception - In the development of the sign ordinance, a primary objective has been ensuring against the kind of signage that has led to low visual quality. On the other hand, an equally primary objective has been guarding against signage over-control. It is not the intention of the sign ordinance to discourage innovation. It is entirely conceivable that signage proposals could be made that, while clearly nonconforming to the sign ordinance, have obvious merit in not only being appropriate to the particular site or location, but also in making a positive contribution to the visual environment. Such proposals will be seriously and fairly considered by City Council.
o Variance - The City Council may hear appeals from the denial of a permit. Criteria for granting such a variance is stated in the State statute, V.T.C.A. Local Government Code 211.008et seq., as amended.
o In this case, the Sign Ordinance clearly restricts the addition of a second shopping center pole sign along McDonald.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
• N/A
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
• N/A