Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Approved
Review Details: PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE REVIEW v.1
Plan Number - TP-PRE-0124-00018
Review Name: PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE REVIEW v.1
Review Status: Approved
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Building Official | NOT REQUIRED | ||||
| Signs | REVIEW COMPLETED | Sign review: pole sign alteration (complete neon renovation / same structure) For: Sherwin Williams AT: 4759 E Speedway Bl Zoning: C-2 Sign District: General Business District Sign presubmittal case: TP-PRE-0124-00018 Date: 2/14/24 Reviewer: H. Thrall (Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov) & Dan Santa Cruz (Dan.SantaCruz@tucsonaz.gov) Codes: Unified Development Code (UDC) 7A, Sign Standards, National Electrical Code (NEC) 600, Tucson-Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code (OLC), International Building Code (IBC) 2018 1) UDC: A) The proposal entails the alteration of a nonconforming pole sign by removing the present text and neon from the sign and refurbishing it with all new neon and new copy for Sherwin Williams. The subject pole sign is nonconforming for several aspects, inclusive of height (approximately 34.5’ tall) and sign area (approximately 166 square feet boxed), and ability for the location to have a pole sign. Further, an additional nonconforming pole sign is present at the site and used by the Sherwin Williams establishment. The proposal entails removal of that other pole sign (to the west of the subject sign). B) Pertinent history: In 2015, under case T15SA00276, the subject sign was reviewed and approved by Mayor & Council in accordance with criteria of the former Sign Code for a Historic Landmark Sign with adaptive re-use for part of the text. That sign design, while approved, never proceeded, and the sign is not listed on the registry for HLS status at this time. C) Though the shape and age and materials of the sign still qualify for a Heritage Landmark Sign (HLS), the sign design as proposed with the new neon colors, amount of neon and backer colors, does not meet the criteria (HLS) designation, per sections 7A.10.5.A.3, the purpose of Heritage Landmark Signs (B), nor HLS performance requirements of section E.1.B with potential adaptive re-use to add text back from that era between 1961 and 1974. D) Per 7A.9.1.C, Except for reasonable repairs, no nonconforming sign shall be moved, altered, removed and reinstalled, or replaced, unless it is brought into compliance with the requirements of the Sign Standards. E) The proposal as shown, with new neon and backer colors, (and clear covers over the neon to meet outdoor lighting code) is not a reasonable repair. The proposal either requires redesign to compliment a Heritage Landmark Sign application or may be reviewed under the Sign Design Review Option Process as a Singular Sign Design Option with modifications made to sign design first to meet the criteria within UDC 7A.7.1. Note, the SDRC review requires detailed plans and applications that clearly provide analysis with: Responding to section 7A.1.1. purpose of the Sign Standards (see 7A.1.1.C and D); Responding to Section 7A.7.1.A, purpose of the Master Sign Program Responding to all design standards of Section 7A.7.1. E.1., E.2,a.b. and c., and Responding to findings of Section 7A.7.1.G F) Given the information provided in the package, the applicant should clarify how the light trespass for the sign would be addressed, examine appropriate height for the sign compared to adjacent freestanding signs and the building (provide photos), should examine the design criteria for uniform design with use of text and color, and the structural base aspect needed. Further, the applicant should provide a sign area calculation that shows the tenant within 3 to 1 ratio of sign area based on the existing signs, and allowance for use of the sign on the adjacently owned land within the same center. In addition, as this sign qualifies for heritage landmark sign status, please clarify why this option is not being pursued further with design compatible for that aspect, after the prior review by Mayor & Council in 2015. Be advised that should the SDRC review process result in any approval, that technical codes are still applicable and all work must be done on the site (no removal of the cabinets for neon work). 2). NEC: A) Dan Santa Cruz had no comments. 3) OLC: A) Dan Santa Cruz had no comments. 4) IBC: A) Separate – if the sign is shortened in height. Next steps: meet with staff, redesign, address comments – submit for SDRC review or HLS review Please email me if you have any questions. Thank you |
|||
| Zoning Administration | REVIEW COMPLETED | This project requires SDRC review. |