Zoning board denies request for new multi-tenant sign at 3170 East 50 Third Street

The Davenport Zoning Board of Adjustment on Sept. 11 denied a hardship-variance request from OGAD Properties LLC to install a new multi-tenant freestanding sign at 3170 East 50 Third Street, voting 4-0 against a motion to approve the request.

The petition sought permission to place a multi-tenant sign about 36 feet from the nearest existing multi-tenant sign; the zoning code requires multi-tenant signs on the same zoning lot to be separated by 75 feet. Scott Cope of the Neighborhood Services Division told the board the site is a flag lot within a larger zoning lot made up of three or four properties and that staff found the petitioner had not demonstrated the practical difficulties or unique physical conditions required for a variance. "The petitioner has not demonstrated practical difficulties or particular hardships associated with this property nor justification for additional multi tenant sign," Cope said, summarizing the staff report and recommending denial.

The applicant, identified in the meeting materials as representing OGAD Properties LLC and speaking as the property owner, described the property’s leasing difficulties and said the lack of visible signage on East 50 Third Street hampers tenants. He said the building, constructed in February 2002 and purchased by the current owner in February 2019, is about 20% occupied. "We are proposing a sign at the entrance of this property…this is very confusing to our business owners and their clients, and they find it very hard to find the location," the property owner said. He offered several alternatives he said he had requested from neighboring property owners, saying one nearby sign owner declined to cooperate.

Tenants backed the request in public comment. Sarah Emma Regalado, a tenant at 3170 East 50 Third Street, said she had used a temporary feather flag to gain visibility and that customers had difficulty finding the building. "A lot of people do use that drive just for the enterprise and to access the bank," Regalado said, explaining marketing efforts that have not solved the wayfinding problem.

Board members discussed options short of a variance. Staff noted the code allows smaller directional signs placed inside a driveway or on a parcel once drivers have turned in; under the code discussed at the meeting a directional sign may be limited to about 5 feet in height and roughly 6 square feet. Cope said a directional sign could include a logo and the building address, and the board suggested trying that route before granting an exception to the 75-foot separation rule. "If there's a directional sign there with an address, logo, whatever, that might gain the benefit they're looking for and still meet current ordinance," Chair Dan Darling said during the discussion.

After discussion the board moved to approve the variance; the motion failed on a roll-call vote: Bridget Boyd Carlson — No; John Clefmann — No; Kristen Crawford — No; Dan Darling — No. The board noted staff had recommended denial and reminded the applicant that a substantially different proposal could be presented to staff or the board, or the request could be refiled after one year as provided by local procedure.

The board also asked the applicant to provide copies of the emails he said he exchanged with neighboring property owners declining cooperation; the applicant said he would supply those records for the public file. Other details in the record: the applicant proposed two sign styles (a two-post option and a shrouded monument-style sign that would comply visually with code dimensions), indicated the proposed sign face would be under local area square-foot limits, and said the new sign would be a static sign with a digital panel on top. Staff said staff had not completed a full code compliance review of the proposed sign face, and that the current hearing focused on location and separation requirements.