TOWN OF CARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING
January 10, 2000

CASE:

99-24-A

STAFF CONTACT:

Matt Griffin
Planner
(919) 469-4342
mgriffin@ci.cary.nc.us

APPLICANT(S):

Ebert Sign Company

OWNER(S):

Motel 6

LOCATION:

1401 Buck Jones Road (South Hills Plaza)

PRESENT ZONING:

B2 Commercial District

REQUEST:

The applicant, Ebert Sign Company, is appealing a staff decision to deny sign permits based on the failure of proposed signage to meet the requirements of the Town of Cary Unified Development Ordinance Section 17.14 Nonconforming Signs, and Section 13.2.8 Signs permitted in Non Residential Districts.

BACKGROUND:

 

 

The Motel 6 site located at 1401 Buck Jones Road, an outparcel of South Hills Shopping Center, currently has 5 nonconforming signs on premises (4 wall and 1 ground).

The signs are nonconforming in the following ways:

EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES

  • Number of signs violates 13.2.8.(e)(2). There are too many wall signs. Currently there are 4 signs attached to the structure; only two signs are allowed.

13.2.8. Signs Permitted in Non-Residential Districts

(e) Shopping Centers

(2) Wall signs. The project is allowed a maximum of one (1) wall sign per tenant. The surface area of an attached sign shall not exceed, in square feet, the number of lineal feet that is the horizontal length of the individual tenant space. Subtenants are allowed one (1) wall sign in addition to other wall signs already allowed by this Section, provided that the total allowable square footage for the main tenant is not exceeded. Outparcels are allowed two (2) wall signs, with each sign not to exceed one (1) square foot per each lineal foot of the width for the wall where the sign is attached.

  • Two wall signs are in violation of 13.2.8.(e)(2). Two wall signs each exceed in square footage the number of lineal feet of the wall on which they are attached. The two signs are 83 +/- square feet. One is attached to a wall that is 45 lineal feet: the other sign is attached to a wall that is roughly 23 lineal feet.

 

13.2.8. Signs Permitted in Non-Residential Districts

(e) Shopping Centers

(2) Wall signs. The project is allowed a maximum of one (1) wall sign per tenant. The surface area of an attached sign shall not exceed, in square feet, the number of lineal feet that is the horizontal length of the individual tenant space. Subtenants are allowed one (1) wall sign in addition to other wall signs already allowed by this Section, provided that the total allowable square footage for the main tenant is not exceeded. Outparcels are allowed two (2) wall signs, with each sign not to exceed one (1) square foot per each lineal foot of the width for the wall where the sign is attached.

  • All signs are in violation of 13.2.8.(e)(4)(c). The signs are three colors (white, blue, and red). Blue and red do not have ties to the shopping center architecture.

 

13.2.8. Signs Permitted in Non-Residential Districts

(e) Shopping Centers

(4) Colors

(c) Out parcel sign colors shall be the same as the main building or one (1) other color with ties to the center architecture.

 

As mentioned earlier, Motel 6 is an outparcel of South Hills Plaza Shopping Center. As such, it must also conform to the criteria of the Uniform Sign Plan of South Hills Plaza.

The Uniform Sign Plan limits the colors that can be used to white and dark bronze, plus one additional color of the tenant’s choice – provided that color has ties to the shopping center architecture.

 

REQUESTED CHANGES

The applicant requested to change the faces out of 3 of these signs. The proposed faces were of different design than the existing faces.

 

Section 17.1.4.(b) of the Town of Cary Unified Development Ordinance states that a nonconforming sign, including its permanent message or its structure, shall not be extended, enlarged, moved, or otherwise altered unless the sign is made to conform to the applicable requirements of the Ordinance.

 

If the permanent message is altered, the signage must be made compliant.

 

The proposed signs are in violation of the Town of Cary Unified Development Ordinance in the following ways:

PROPOSED SIGNAGE NONCONFORMATIES

  • Number of signs violates 13.2.8.(e)(2). There are too many wall signs. Currently there are 4 signs attached to the structure, only two signs are allowed.

13.2.8. Signs Permitted in Non-Residential Districts

(e) Shopping Centers

(2) Wall signs. The project is allowed a maximum of one (1) wall sign per tenant. The surface area of an attached sign shall not exceed, in square feet, the number of lineal feet that is the horizontal length of the individual tenant space. Subtenants are allowed one (1) wall sign in addition to other wall signs already allowed by this Section, provided that the total allowable square footage for the main tenant is not exceeded. Outparcels are allowed two (2) wall signs, with each sign not to exceed one (1) square foot per each lineal foot of the width for the wall where the sign is attached.

  • Two wall signs are in violation of 13.2.8.(e)(2). The two wall signs each exceed in square footage the number of lineal feet of the wall on which they are attached. The two signs are 83 +/- square feet. One is attached to a wall that is 45 lineal feet, the other is attached to a wall that is roughly 23 lineal feet

 

13.2.8. Signs Permitted in Non-Residential Districts

(e) Shopping Centers

(2) Wall signs. The project is allowed a maximum of one (1) wall sign per tenant. The surface area of an attached sign shall not exceed, in square feet, the number of lineal feet that is the horizontal length of the individual tenant space. Subtenants are allowed one (1) wall sign in addition to other wall signs already allowed by this Section, provided that the total allowable square footage for the main tenant is not exceeded. Outparcels are allowed two (2) wall signs, with each sign not to exceed one (1) square foot per each lineal foot of the width for the wall where the sign is attached.

 

  • The proposed signs are in violation of 13.2.8.(e)(4)(c). The proposed signs are four colors (black, white, blue, and red). Black, blue. and red do not have ties to the center architecture.

 

13.2.8. Signs Permitted in Non-Residential Districts

(e) Shopping Centers

(4) Colors

(c) Out parcel sign colors shall be the same as the main building or one (1) other color with ties to the center architecture.

 

  • The proposed wall signs are in violation of 13.2.8.(m). The proposed signs have a changeable copy area that is not allowed.

 

13.2.8. Signs Permitted in Non-Residential Districts

(m) Changeable copy signs. Changeable copy signs may be erected only for the purpose of displaying gasoline prices, current and upcoming performances or shows at theaters, and the menu for restaurants with drive through and/or drive-in windows.

 

  • As mentioned earlier, Motel 6 is an outparcel of South Hills Plaza Shopping Center. As such, it must also conform to the criteria of the Uniform Sign Plan of South Hills Plaza.

 

The Uniform Sign Plan limits the colors that can be used to white and dark bronze, plus one additional color of the tenant’s choice – provided that color has ties to the shopping center architecture.

 

STANDARDS OF REVIEW:

Section 6.2.5 of the Cary Unified Development Ordinance regarding Administrative Appeals, states in part the following:

c. In reversing, affirming, or modifying the contested action, the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall have all relevant powers of the administrative officer from whom the appeal is taken.

d. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall not reverse or modify the contested action unless it finds that the administrative officer erred in the application or interpretation of the terms of this Ordinance or related policies adopted by the Town.

e. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall not reverse or modify the contested action unless there is a concurring vote of at least eight members.

   

SUGGESTED MOTION:

MOTION TO REVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S DECISION

I HEREBY MAKE A MOTION TO REVERSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S DECISION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:

  1. _______________________________________________
  2. _______________________________________________
  3. _______________________________________________

MOTION TO AFFIRM ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S DECISION

 

I HEREBY MAKE A MOTION TO AFFIRM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S DECISION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:

1. ________________________________________________

2. ________________________________________________

3. ________________________________________________

MOTION TO MODIFY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S DECISION

 

I HEREBY MAKE A MOTION TO MODIFY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S DECISION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:

  1. _______________________________________________
  2. _______________________________________________
  3. _______________________________________________

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

  • Application