06/04/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

shows pole and base to remain. Proposal is in violation of section 1163.11(b). Note: (1) Violation ordering removal of abandoned sign was issued 12/2/2008. (2) Existing light fixture violates provisions of 1161.12(d). Dan Malley was sworn in. He said last year the rear tenant moved out and to ensure the pole sign was not left blank he replaced the face with a Malley sign. The tenant's pole sign was first installed in the early 50's when the property was purchased. He said he met with city staff who told him he could replace the sign with a Malley sign. Once the sign face was changed he received a letter stating the change was made without a permit and the entire sign had to be removed. He is requesting to keep the sign and pole which houses a security light for the parlcing lot. If the board does not allow the sign he proposes to remove it and keep the pole and light. The light is needed to ensure pedestrian safety. Mrs. Diver noted that the light fixture violated zoning codes as well. Mr. Malley said the only reason the pole sign violates the code is he waited to long to reface the sign. Mr. Mitchell said that neither the pole sign nor the light fixture met zoning code requirements and the applicant's meeting with city staff was to address building signs not site signs. Mr. Malley said the meeting was to discuss a neon hot fudge sundae sign which he was advised against. He asked if shielding the light would eliminate the variance. Mr. Mitchell said the non- conforming pole sign is required to be entirely removed and the applicant can submit plans to install a light pole which conforms to code. Mr. Malley said he should be allowed to keep the pole and light as it has been in place since the 50's. Ms. Rudolph asked when the light was attached to the pole. Mr. Malley said the light was attached in the 70's. Ms. Rudolph questioned if the pole sign was owned by Malley's or the previous tenant. Mr. Malley said Malley Realty owned both lots. Mrs. Sergi asked if that space would be leased to a new tenant. Mr. Malley said the chocolate store leases the space for storage. Ms. Rudolph asked if there were other light fixtures on the lot or just the one in question. Mr. Malley reviewed what site lighting there was but did not feel it was sufficient for pedestrian or vehicle safety. Mrs. Sergi said the applicant could install light poles and fixtures which meet code and eliminate safety concerns. Mr. Malley said the location of the light was chosen to ensure the main drive was safe. Mr. Lopez questioned if a photometric survey had been conducted to ensure proper lights and light-levels met the needs of the site. Mr. Malley said he had never had a light study conducted. Mrs. Diver questioned if it was possible to install a light which could meet city codes. Mr. Mitchell said the applicant could install a conforming light pole and light. Even if the sign is removed from the pole, the pole itself is not a confortning light pole nor is the light. Mr. Lopez said while visiting the site he noted the concerns for safety but proper poles and light fixtures could be installed. Mr. O'Malley advised the board as to how to address the request and reviewed pertinent sections of the zoning code. Mr. Lopez said the existing sign pole does not meet code nor does the light and granting a variance to keep the sign pole does not address the lighting issues and creates additional non-conformities. The applicant has other methods available which would meet code and ensure his customers safety. Mrs. Diver said the applicant's predicament could be precluded without a variance. Mrs. Bellido agreed granting a variance to keep the pole would not uphold the spirit and intent of the zoning code. Ms. Rudolph said although the light is convenient and