From
Chris Hartmann
Title
USP180201 - Unified Signage Plan - 2503 W. Interstate 20 (City Council District 4). Unified Signage Plan for multiple on-site changeable outdoor advertising signs within the Great Southwest Crossing shopping center. Lot 3, Block 1, I-20/Great Southwest Addition, City of Grand Prairie, Tarrant County, Texas, 18.522 acres zoned Planned Development 33 (PD-33) District within the Interstate 20 Overlay Corridor District and generally located at the southeast corner of IH 20 and Great Southwest Parkway. The agent is Brian Guenzel, the applicant is Raymond Rodriguez, and the owner is James Nakagawa, BRE RC GREAT SW TX LP. (On February 5, 2018, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied this request by a vote of 5-1 and Council tabled this item on February 20, 2018).
Presenter
David Jones, Chief City Planner
Recommended Action
Approve
Analysis
SUMMARY:
Requesting approval of a Unified Signage Plan authorizing & allowing for the construction and placement of unique and innovative advertising panels within a commercial shopping center. (Great Southwest Shopping Center). Specifically addressed at 2325 W. Interstate Highway 20, the property is platted as Bowen, Brooke Addition, Block 1, Lots 1R. The shopping center is zoned Planned Development 250 (PD-250) allowing for retail and commercial uses and is also located within then Interstate 20 (I-20) Overlay Corridor District. The property is located in Council District 4, represented by Councilman Richard Fregoe.
PURPOSE OF REQUEST:
The applicant proposes 4 internal signs on a single property within the Great Southwest Commercial Center, on the lot currently occupied by Kroger. The applicant proposes 14’ tall poles with four by seven foot 4’X7’ mounted cabinets. The internally-lit (LED) cabinets allow for static advertisement of national brand products.
Article 9 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) allows for Sign Standards and provides regulations including the types of media, placement, size, design, as well as permit requirements. These regulations apply to residential, non-residential, industrial and public information/identification mediums. Article 9 of the UDC acknowledges the business community’s purpose related to promoting commerce, balancing advertisement/business identification with reasonable sign standards thoughout the community.
Currently, Article 9 limits the number as well as spacing of pole signs. Unlike signage authorized in the UDC, the signs as proposed are designed to be viewed by shoppers already within the center and not to be readily visible from public streets. The UDC restricts advertising to products sold on the same property. Because the signs are proposed only on the Kroger lot, the content of the signs would be limited to products sold in Kroger.
REVIEW COMMENTS:
All signage requires permit application and review for compliance via Building Inspection Department for clearance, wind load, structural and other code compliance subject to Council’s approval of USP.
The location (place) of signage is 200’-400’ from public street (rights-of-way) view, thereby limiting the visibility from public view. The intent of the advertisement is for on-site visitors to the center only. The signs are not intended to operate as an off-premise sign or to advertise to passing travelers. Therefore a condition should be for the advertisement on the sign to be directly related to retail items sold on-site.
Staff recognizes the benefit of the proposal to the property owner, tenant, and visitors to the shopping center. Staff has no concerns over the appearance or quality of the signs as proposed in this signage plan. However, staff does have concerns as to the regulation of content since off-site advertising is prohibited in the UDC and the changable nature of the signs would allow off-site businesses to advertise on them while making regulation difficult. There are also unknown factors such as long-term appearance, durability, and upkeep, given that the signs by definition are placed in high traffic areas in close proximity to moving vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended denial of this request by vote of 5-1.