02-28-1990 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In evaluating the proposed variance, a determination must be made regarding the necessity of three signs and if the applicant is receiving an undue hardship as a result of the interpretation of the Ordinance. Ordinance Requirements. According to Section 903.110.E.5.(b), in shopping centers where there are two or more business uses located within one structure or on one property, the complex may have two free - standing signs identifying the complex. The applicant claims that the site holds two separate structures and therefore should be allowed a total of three pylon signs. It is our contention that the two structures which comprise the retail development should be considered a single retail establishment. It should be understood that the Rapid Oil Change was developed in unison with the principal retail structure, not as independent business. In addition, both structures utilize common access and parking areas and lie functionally dependent upon each other. In response to this interpretation of the Ordinance, the applicant may be allowed three pylon signs only via the granting of a variance. Variance. As mentioned earlier, a variance will be required to allow three pylon signs upon the subject site. In considering the applicant's request, the Ordinance stipulates that a variance shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved. It appears that no special conditions involving topography, water conditions or lot configuration exist which would warrant the proposed variance. b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. The applicant alleges that through his interpretation of the Ordinance, he has been deprived of several rights. The applicant maintains that because a physical separation of structures exist upon the subject site, the development should not be regarded as a singular retail establishment, subject to specific sign requirements. As mentioned previously, our office views the retail center as a single entity with the Rapid Oil facility being simply a physical detachment of the principal structure. In this light, we see no deprivation regarding pylon sign requirements. 2 Page 24