6.7. SR 04-17-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Discussion At the Board of Adjustment meeting held on April 11 th , the applicant argued that the three signs are needed to identify the different businesses on the premise, to direct customers to the entrances and are proportional to the amount of frontage. The Board believed that the ordinance recognizes the need for additional signage on parcels with excessive frontage and allowed two freestanding signs if there is more than 300 feet of frontage. The Board voted 7:0 to deny the variance request for 3 freestanding signs. Financial Impact N/A Attachments Board of Adjustment staff report Action Requested Denial of the variance request based on the following: 1. Literal enforcement if the ordinance will not cause undue hardship. The size of the project along with the two allowable freestanding signs is sufficient to identify the dealership. 2. The hardship is caused ly special conditions and circumstances, which are peculiar to the properry and the structure involved and which are not characteristic of, or applicable to, other lands or structure in the same area. There is no hardship. The applicant's situation is not unique regarding freestanding signs along Highway 10. The dealership across the highway, which is similar to the applicant, has two freestanding signs along the Highway 10. 3. The literal application if the provisions if this ordinance would deprive the petitioner if rights ef!jqyed ly other properties in the same district under the terms if this ordinance. Similar sized sites function well with signage that complies with the ordinance. The applicant is not being deprived of rights enjoyed by other properties. 4. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence if the petitioner's own action or inaction. No special conditions or circumstances exist. Council Action Motion by _ Second by _ Vote Follow Up s: \pLANNING\ Case Files \2006\ Variance \ V 06-02 E R Ford\RCA V06-02CC4-17.doc