10-08-09 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 2009 all these years, and the inside is rusted and beyond repair. Duray reported that in repairing the sign base he found that the sign is legally non- conforming as iC encroaches into the required setback. Adding the brick base arowrd the damaged concrete increases that encroachment. Duray indicated that the required setback for the pylon is 10 feet from Rice Street and 5 feet from Demont Avenue. Knudsen asked how the sign setback is measured. The City Planner indicated that the closest point of the sign to the property line is measured, that could be either the sign base or the sign cabinet. Duray indicated that he considered relocating the sign to meet setback requirements, but learned that there is a Magellen Pipeline easement along the southern 35 feet of the property. The existing pylon sign is already within the pipeline easement. Duray stated that he met with representatives of Magellen, who indicated that there are three pipelines immediately north of the pylon sign. One of these is a 12-inch line that is about two feet from the brick base of the pylon. The pipeline is about 4 feet deep, and Duray indicated that the footings for the pylon are approximately the same depth. Duray reported that Magellen will not allow the existing pylon to be relocated anywhere within the pipeline easement. Knudsen asked how the pylon got to be within that easement to begin with. Duray reported that the easement was established in 1931, and the building was constructed in the mid-1970's. Duray was not sure how the pylon came to be located where it is. Knudsen asked if it would be possible to relocate the pylon outside the easement and meet setback requirements. Duray reported that he did look at that possibility. He noted that if the pylon were moved to the north end of the property, it would block the Flameburger sign. Moving the pylon further north outside the easement area will cause circulation and safety problems given the Rice Street access drive as well as parking lot layout. Duray and the Commission reviewed these potential sign locations, and it was noted that locating the pylon on either side of the Rice St~•eet drive would push the pylon into the parking lot. Duray felt that the criteria needed to justify a Variance has been met given the pipeline easement and the fact that he has no control over that easement. Magellen will not allow relocation of the sign within the easement. Duray also noted that moving the sign to the north end of the property causes interference with the signage of the adjacent business. He further noted the safety concern with relocating the pylon on either side of the Rice Street access drive. Duray also pointed out that he is bringing the pylon sign further into compliance with the sign ordinance in that he is -2-