02-08-07 Planning Comm. Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2007 Duray asked if Dehn owned the property between the frontage road and the fence. Dehn replied that he does not, the Sinclair Station property extends to the fence. Dehn stated that he was happy when the power company came through and trimmed the trees in this area. Barraclough indicated that the two pylon signs are the issue. The Little Canada Road pylon will be brought into conformance with City Code. The issue of the high rise sign will wait for further site improvements. The City Planner indicated that the Code allows only one freestanding pylon per property, and to bring the Sinclair Station into compliance, the high rise sign would have to be removed. However, if the City was inclined to allow the high rise sign to remain, various options include allowing it to remain as is, allowing the face to be changed, or requiring that it be lowered. The Planner indicated that any of these options could be allowed without the granting of a Variance. The Planner noted that the Code allows improvements to be made to an existing non-conforming sign if those improvements bring the sign closer to conformance with the Code. Duray indicated that he sees no hardship present to warrant the granting of a Variance for the signage. However, if the second pylon could be accommodated without the need for a Variance, Duray stated that he would support it at this time. Helmeke asked how common it was for a commercial property to have two pylons. The City Planner indicated that the City has not allowed two pylons for a commercial property since the current Code was adopted in 1980. The Planner indicated that the Citgo Station has two pylons; however, the current property owner is planning to remove one as part of some upcoming improvements to the property. Dehn felt it was very common to see two pylons on a property that has an interstate location. Dehn felt the biggest draw for getting people into the site is the price sign and the interstate sign. Hall asked if allowing the second pylon sign to remain on the property would set a precedent. The City Planner stated that a precedent would not be set. The two pylons on the property are legally non-conforming uses, and the signage improvements proposed would bring the signage closer to conformance. Under this scenario, a Variance would not be required. Hall agreed that there was no hardship present to warrant granting of a Variance. He also questioned the value of the high rise pylon to the Sinclair Station, and noted that the property is difficult to get into. Hall doubted that vehicles traveling north on 35E would exit the freeway to patronize the 4-