04/01/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7. A 10 foot variance for ground signs too close to each other (sign I to sign G); code requires 200 ft, applicant shows 190 ft, Section 1163.27(a). 8. A 15 foot variance for ground signs too close to side property line (sign I); code requires 20 ft, applicant shows 5 ft, Section 1163.27(b). 9. A 15 foot variance for ground signs too close to side property line (sign G); code requires 20 ft, applicant shows 5 ft, Section 1163.27(b). 10. A variance for a ground sign within the 35 foot line of sight triangle; code does not permit, applicant shows sign I within the triangle, section 1163.14 (a). 11. A 10%z inch variance for a wall sign taller than code allows (sign A); code permits 4 ft, applicant shows 4 ft 10%z inches, Section 1163.28(c). Note: 1. monument sign (J), ATM drive up sign (G), Do not enter/stop sign (H), Do not enter/Right turn only (I). 2. Added sign (I) onto property. 3. Light poles lowered to meet code. David Behrens with Greenberg Farrow was sworn in and said he represented the banlc. There is a monument sign which meets code and three directional signs which are needed for safety. There are two points of egress: one will be a right turn only which includes a double face directional sign (do not enter/right turn only). The sign in front of the drive through canopy is a double face (do not enter/stop sign). The third sign is along the west property line to direct vehicles to the drive through. The other variances are due to the proximity of the ground signs to each other which is due to the size of the lot. The only wall sign will require a 10%2 inch variance due to the logo and sign being stacked; if the signs were side by side it would exceed the square footage allowed for the wall sign. Ms. Rudolph aslced if the canopy sign would be removed and Mr. Behrens said that although it was discussed his client has requested it remain. Ms. Rudolph aslced if the east sign could be placed outside the 35 foot triangle. Mr. Behrens said the sign would not serve its purpose outside the triangle. A brief discussion ensued pertaining to conditioning variance approval upon the canopy sign being removed and Mr. Gareau advised that the canopy sign was a legal sign and its reinoval could not be a condition of variance approval. However, the presence of the canopy sign could affect how the board loolcs at the need for a wall sign variance. Mr. Mitchell said it is not uncommon for small sites to request directional signs which are needed for safety. The east sign within the triangle is warranted and the wall sign is two signs staclced and boxed in. Most of the variances requested are due to the proximity of the ground signs to each other which is unavoidable. Ms. Wenger said that if the Planning Commission and City Council approve a driveway scenario which is right turn exit only, the city needs to provide relaxation of the code to ensure safe traffic movement. Therefore she believes the directional signs have merit however she feels that a monument sign, canopy sign and wall sign each facing the street does not malce a case for additional wall sign height. Mrs. Bellido said although there are multiple variances for the directional signs they are warranted as the lot is small and safe traffic flow is important. The wall sign should meet code as there appears to be enough signs. Mr. Lopez said although there a many variances they are needed to direct traffic safely. The wall sign is not warranted as there is a canopy sign in the same sight line. All board members agreed that the variances for the ground signs were warranted but the wall sign variance was not due to the canopy sign proximity. Mrs. Diver felt