Sign causes zoning rift

Stotler presented the project at the Design Review Board hearing last year when the project was approved, at which point she made note of the potential zoning conflict presented by the sign, she said.

"I said it may not be consistent with zoning code," Stotler said.

Despite the warning, plans for the sign were not changed and the project's final plan check was approved by the City Planning Department.

Planning Department officials called the approval an error, but they say the applicant should have addressed the sign issue after the Design Review Board hearing when Stotler mentioned that the sign could present a zoning conflict.

"It slipped on by us in plan check," Stotler said. "I probably should have made it a condition of approval at Design Review. That way I wouldn't have just mentioned it and relied on the applicant to do the right thing. But just because we missed it doesn't mean it's legal."

Nakaishi Associates architectural consultant Bob Taylor, who handled the Lavanchy project, contends that the existing sign, even with the new roof, is not illegal.

The appearance of the sign is the same, he said.

"Nothing has changed except we've taken a canvas canopy and made it a permanent roof," Taylor said.

But Lavanchy said he will remove the sign.

"Now I have to get rid of the sign and getting rid of the sign implies a lot of money," he said. "If I have to remove the sign, I have to remove the sign. But if they had made me do it earlier I would have done the project differently."