Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />Mr. Grendell explained that the plan was processed through the city according to <br />to Section 1149 of the Mixed Use Gode, During this process they received <br />unanimous approval from each board. Since they had presented materials and <br />landscaping of the sign, they were led to believe tha,t this sign was approved. <br />Later they were advised that they needed a variance for the signage, they do not <br />agree that under Section 1149 that they are required to do this. He explained the <br />location and boundaries of the pareel and that it is unique since it is cut off <br />from the city and is at the end of a 400 foot road that comes off Barton Road <br />which is not a main thoroughfare and the entrance is barely visible from Barton <br />Road. So the parcel meets the first requirement for granting a variance in that <br />the physical size, shape, and location characteristics are different than any <br />other premises of the same use wi.thi.n the district. They have an identification <br />problem because of this location and identification is what will make this <br />project work. It was clarified f_or Mr.- Gomersall that this sign was submitted <br />with the original proposal in March of 1992. Mr. Grendell then stated that the <br />refusal of this variance would cause a deprivation of rights and those rights <br />were recognized by Council, Planning Commission, and Architectural Review Board <br />to do a 214 unit project in keeping with the Mixed Use zoning. To change <br />direction and say that they cannot do the signage program would have an extreme <br />and direct economic impact on the project. It was clarified that the sign program <br />consists of the two signs shown. Finally, this variance will not be contrary to <br />the Zoning Code since under 1149 the Plaming Commission could not approve the <br />plan if it were not in keeping with the spirit of that code. That decision was <br />made when the the city bodies accepted the project. Mr. Koberna asked if their <br />architects were aware of the codes for the signs. Mr. Grendell stated that at no <br />time during the presentations did anyone mention that a variance was required. <br />Councilman Nashar advised that a few rnonths ago, when Cinnamon Woods requested a <br />variance for a sign to be placed at Barton and Cinnamon Way because there was no <br />street sign for Cinnamon Way, he suggested a street sign for Cinnamon Way as a <br />compromise. He maintained tha.t they knew that this property was out of the way, <br />when they developed it. This sign is now abutting the residential property on <br />Barton Road. It was clarified that the sign was set back 20 foot from the <br />residential property line. At thi.s point Mr. MeCafferty, a resident of Barton <br />Road, came forward and was sworn in. Mr. Fox, representing Mr. Frieg, presented a <br />petitYOn from residents on Ba.rton Road objecting to any sign variances being <br />granted. He advised that the residents believed that from the beginni.ng of the <br />project there has been a blatant cLisregard for the ordinances of the city and the <br />rights of the property owners. When a temporary sign was put up within a foot of <br />his client's property and the city ordered it removed within 48 hours, it took <br />them two weeks. Mr. Elliot disagreed and stated it was removed within 48 hours. <br />Mr. Fox further stated that there have been violations of the noise ordinance, <br />and it is their position that all this should have been asked for prior to the <br />development being started. Building Commissioner Conway advised that it is not <br />uncomnon for either the Architectural Review Board and the Planning Conmiission to <br />approve a sign in concept with the provision that the sign either meet code or <br />receive a variance for ito Thi.s sign as is presented was reviewed by both of <br />those boards and the B.Z.D. Committee, and at one time it had not been determined <br />that this street was to be dedicated so all the variances being addressed could <br />not have been reviewed tmtil this was determined. Mr. Frieg maintained that this <br />would be visible from his back yard since his lot goes back about 400 feet. Mr. <br />Elliot stated that the sign is going to be 20 feet from residential property. Mr. <br />Grendell stated that they are entitlEd to a sign, so whether the variance is <br />granted or not there will be a sign there. Mr. McCafferty stated that all the <br />houses that have been built are sold, so people must be finding the development, <br />4