6.7. SR 04-17-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustments / V 06-02 April 11, 2006 Page 3 the Chrysler/Plymouth sign further to the south, remove the Ford Truck sign and replace it with a readerboard/ changeable copy style pylon sign. The existing signs will lose their non-conforming status because they are being relocated or replaced. Section 30-854(b) states that a legal non-conforming sign may lose it status if the sign is relocated, replaced or altered, other than for change of copy or normal maintenance. Variances are required to move the Ford sign, move the Chrysler sign and to construct the new readerboard/ changeable copy style pylon sign. Analysis In order to grant a variance from the literal interpretation of the ordinance, the following five conditions must be met: 1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship. The applicant currently has 3 freestanding signs. The sign face could be changed on each sign without the need for a variance. Because one of the signs is being removed and replaced with a new sign and another is being relocated, a variance is needed. The applicant feels that the undue hardship is that customers will not be able to identify the dealership without the new signage. Staff feels that the size of the project along with the two allowable freestanding signs is sufficient to identify the dealership. 2. The hardship is caused ry special conditions and circumstances, which are peculiar to the proper(] and the structure involved and which are not characteristic of, or applicable to, other lands or structure in the same area. The applicant believes that the hardship lies in the fact that the business is land intensive and requires the three signs on Highway 10. Staff does not believe that a hardship exists. 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 of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the petitioner of rights ef!Jqyed ry otherproperties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. The applicant feels that the number of signs being requested is proportionate to the size of the site. The site is 17.73 acres; for comparison Saxon Motors has 13.52 acres, Walmart has 21 acres and Menards has 14.42 acres. These similar sized sites function well with signage that complies with the ordinance. Staff does not feel that the applicant is being deprived of rights enjoyed by other properties. 4. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. S:\pLANNING\Case Files\2006\ Variance\ V 06-02 E R Ford\ V 06-02BA4-11.doc