03-22-1989 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

McMENOMY & SEVERSON A PROFESSIONAL, ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS Al' (.A\ Page Six Little Canada Planning Commission February 28, 1989 Little Canada which exceed the current height regulations. By granting our requested variance, Fina is only seeking a reasonable degree of visibility and the ability to compete fairly with its competitors who have far more signage and visibility than we are requesting. D. HARDSHIP. For the reasons discussed above, it is respectfully submitted that if Fina is not allowed to install its new 30 foot pylon sign, it is being afforded a far different treatment than similarly situated businesses have received in Little Canada and that, at least as to competing gasoline stations, it is being very unequally treated in comparison with Union 76 and Sinclair who have multiple pylon signs greatly in excess of the 30 foot height that Fine is requesting. It is submitted that affording Fina such different treatment deprives Fina of due process, equal protection and equal dealing all of which are, standing alone, a hardship to Fina. In addition to the inequal treatment, any diminution in Fina's signage gives an unfair competitive advantage to our most direct freeway access competitors, Union 76 and Sinclair who, once again, have signage greatly in excess of that being requested by Fina. This hardship, and competitive disadvantage is only increased by the dominance of the McDonald golden archs sign which, in many respects, visually overwhelms and practically blocks our existing white signage from traffic heading south on Rice Street. For all of the reasons discussed above, we respectively request that the Planning Commission affirm its prior decision regarding the Fina sign request and, once again, recommend to the City Council that Fina's request be granted and the prior Resolutions reversed. Page 46