Laserfiche WebLink
Case File: V 13 -01 <br />Page 3 <br />Cornerstone Sign variance <br />their building anywhere on the property- not within the setbacks. The petitioner chose to <br />place this accessory structure away from the front of the lot. <br />Staff Response 2. More directly, the Comprehensive Plan discusses signage in the <br />Community- Image section of the Plan. Specifically, it states: <br />"Without public guidance, business signs can diminish the overall image of <br />commercial districts and corridors." The plan continues: "Local ordinances <br />should seek a balance between private and public objectives. At a minimum, <br />the size and appearance of signs should not detract from a positive <br />community image." <br />The City completed a comprehensive review of the sign ordinance in 2009 which further <br />refined signage regulations, the result being a sign ordinance that encourages commercial <br />communication, but while maintaining the cities community) image goals, balancing private <br />and public objectives. A major departure from these regulations (an increase in signage from <br />200 sgft to 484 sqft) cannot be viewed as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. <br />Variances may be granted when the petitioner establishes that there are practical <br />difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Practical difficulties means that: <br />(3) The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted <br />by the zoning ordinance; <br />Staff Response 1. The petitioner states that the valiance request is "slightly larger than <br />permitted..." This is an opinion. In fact, the increase is almost 1.5 times what is allowed. <br />The use of the property is a car dealership, with accessory car wash and (if permitted) oil <br />changes. A 2009 relrieu of the sign ordinance confirms that an adequate amount of signage <br />is allotted to the business. <br />Staff Response 2. The petitioner cautiously suggests that these two businesses should get <br />their own 200 square feet of signage. It should be noted that this is an accessoly building; <br />accessory to the principle business, the car dealership. By definition, the functions of this <br />building is to support the operations of the car dealership, and cannot be considered <br />separate businesses. <br />(4) The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a <br />consequence of the petition's own action or inaction; and <br />The petitioner does not make an argument that the lot is unique. His argument is that they <br />could add a free standing sign (which they could not, unless a variance is granted), and that <br />the variance for the larger building sign makes more sense from a recycling standpoint. Staff <br />appreciates the need to recycle, but a recycling argument does not meet the property <br />uniqueness argument. <br />(5) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br />Staff Response 1. In the Highway Business District, the character is established by wide <br />setbacks, expansive parking lots, and signage. Significant departures from the ordinances <br />drat define these characteristics cannot help but alter the locality. <br />N:\Departments \Community Development \Platuiing \Case Files \Variance \�' 13 -01 Cornerstone Auto \V 13 -01 Cornerstone Auto SR to PC 1 -8- <br />13.doc <br />