Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to Planning Commission/GP 00-2 <br />March 28, 2000 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />because there is another freestanding sign on the same lot that identifies the <br />Amoco station. <br /> <br />The sign ordinance allows one freestanding sign per lot unless there is more <br />than 300 feet of road frontage. If the lot had 300 feet of frontage, they would <br />be allowed 2 freestanding signs. There would have to be a minimum of 150 <br />feet between signs. The sign is non-conforming because the lot on which the <br />two signs are located has 227 feet of frontage on Highway 10 and they are <br />only allowed one freestanding sign. There is about 200 feet between the <br />Amoco sign and the Tally Ho sign. <br /> <br />Section 900.22.5.C of the Sign Ordinance states the City Council may permit <br />the alteration or relocation of a legal non-conforming sign if, after a public <br />hearing by the Planning Commission and City Council, the Council <br />determines that total compliance with the current sign regulations is not <br />reasonable but the alteration or relocation of the non-conforming sign is in <br />greater conformity with the existing sign regulations and is in the best <br />interest of the community. <br /> <br />Alteration <br /> <br />The existing sign has letters across the top that spell FOOD. The proposed <br />alteration would remove those letters and replace them with the Embers logo <br />at a lower location on the sign. In order to maintain the structural integrity <br />of the sign, the support poles will not be changed. The new sign face will fit <br />within the existing poles. <br /> <br />The existing sign is 156 square feet. The proposed Embers sign will be <br />smaller at 80 square feet. The existing sign is 30 feet high and the proposed <br />Embers sign is lower at 25 feet high. The sign is setback 15 feet from the <br />front property line and 12 feet from the side property line. It complies with <br />the size, setback and height requirements. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Meeting <br /> <br />At the Planning Commission meeting held on March 28th, no one spoke at the <br />public hearing. The Commission discussed the possibility of eliminating one <br />of the 3 support poles. The applicant explained the three poles are needed for <br />structural support. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the <br />request to change the sign face. <br /> <br />S:\PLANNING\SCOTT\GP002CC.DOC <br /> <br /> <br />