3.1 01-08-2013 BOA MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2 January 8,2013 He stated the current tenant(the car wash)has its own signage that should be grandfathered in. He stated per city ordinance,each occupant in a building is allowed 200 square feet of signage. Mr.Rohlf stated he interprets the ordinance to mean he is only 12 square feet over the allowable signage requirements.He stated this signage would also allow visibility for Highway 10 traffic.He presented two photos showing the distance of signage from Highway 10 and felt it would be difficult to read.He stated he addressed the five standards for the variance in his memo attached to staff's report. He further stated Coborn's has signage for every business function they perform in their building. Commissioner Konietzko questioned if the car wash or oil change businesses have separate tax ID numbers from the dealership. Mr.Rolf stated he was unsure but that they are an umbrella corporation. He further noted that each business has to make or break it on its own. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Westburg stated the proposed signage is larger than the one for the Jiffy Lube located by Wal-mart. He further noted this parcel is set back away from Highway 10 and provided the example of Sportech and whether they should really have a sign where they can be seen from Highway 10,when they don't have highway frontage. He stated the applicant is not being denied from having a sign on the building and the previous variance granted should suffice to meet the signage needs for both businesses. Mr.Rohlf stated he would also be willing to throw in the removal of his Mahindra signs in order to get the variance. Mr.Barnhart stated it is true this business is on its own property but the challenge for staff is the history of the property. He detailed the history of this plat. Mr.Barnhart noted the cost to plat a project is fairly significant and the city,working with the applicant in good faith,allowed the construction of this building on this parcel knowing the applicant would plat the whole campus in the near future. He stated six years have passed and now it's being argued that this parcel is its own separate lot.He stated it is true the Planning Commission approved a plat that would allow this building,but the building is technically illegal because there can't be two principle structures on a single lot.He stated staff is classifying this as an accessory building. He stated the other challenge to this is that it is a non-conforming lot and doesn't have the required frontage on a public street.He stated staff is operating as if this is a platted lot because it was what the applicant wanted and the Commission approved.He stated the applicant mentioned the free-standing sign could be used to advertise the car wash,which is true if it's one lot. If it is a separate lot the free- standing sign can't be used to advertise a business that is not on the property because then it would be considered a billboard and fall under the billboard requirements. Mr.Barnhart stated staff was working with the applicant on allowing them to grow their business during a time when business growth was stagnant. He stated the key part of a campus environment is that not every use gets a sign and the applicant chooses what needs to be advertised. He stated they are allowed 272 square feet of signage and the applicant can choose how to use the space.