Laserfiche WebLink
MEMORANDUM <br /> To: Jeremy Barnhart <br /> From: Peter K. Beck <br /> Date: July 30, 2013 <br /> Re: Granite Shores Sign Appeal <br /> This Memorandum is to follow up on our recent conversations regarding the appeal filed <br /> by the owner of Granite Shores from the Planning Staff interpretation that free-standing signs are <br /> not allowed in the Downtown Development District. <br /> It is my understanding that the property owner's position is that, because free-standing <br /> signs are not expressly prohibited by Section 30-872 of the Zoning Ordinance,they are permitted <br /> by Section 30-866. I do not agree. <br /> Section 30-860(e) of the Zoning Ordinance provides, in part, that "In all applications, <br /> where a matter of interpretation arises, the more specific definition or higher standard shall <br /> prevail." Section 30-866 sets forth sign regulations applicable in all zoning districts. <br /> Section 30-872 sets forth sign regulations for the Downtown Development District. <br /> Section 30-872 is the more specific ordinance and, pursuant to Section 30-860(e), prevails over <br /> the general regulations in Section 30-866. <br /> Furthermore, Section 30-872, although it does not use the term "free-standing" sign, <br /> clearly intends to prohibit such signs. Section 30-872(b)(12) states that "monument" signs shall <br /> not be allowed. It is my understanding this language was adopted before the Zoning Ordinance <br /> included a definition of "free-standing" sign. Furthermore, Section 30-872 includes specific <br /> performance standards for all allowable signs in the Downtown Development District. There are <br /> no such standards in Section 30-872 for free-standing or monument signs. The clear intent of <br /> Section 30-872 is to prohibit what are now defined by the Zoning Ordinance as free-standing <br /> signs. <br /> This analysis is not intended to take a position one way or the other on whether the sign <br /> proposed for the Granite Shores property is appropriate. My conclusion is simply that it is not <br /> allowed under the current Zoning Ordinance. If the City Council believes the proposed sign <br /> should be allowed, the appropriate approach would be to amend Section 30-872 of the Zoning <br /> Ordinance to specifically allow free-standing and/or monument signs and to establish performance <br /> standards for such signs. <br /> Please let me know if you have any questions. <br /> cc: Chris Leeseberg <br /> 686417.DOCX <br />