My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-18-2015
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
03-18-2015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/30/2018 6:50:53 AM
Creation date
8/30/2018 6:47:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
3/18/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
2704 County Road 10 Variance Report <br />March 18, 2015 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br />b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />While the Comprehensive Plan does not specify signage criteria for businesses, it does support <br />improvements to, and the success of the City’s businesses. The installation of more signage is <br />typically helpful to the success of a business. The Comprehensive Plan does focus on <br />improvements to the County Road 10 corridor, and taller signs is not one of the things the City <br />feels is visually appealing. <br /> <br />c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this <br />Title or the City Code. <br /> <br />The applicant is asking for the additional ground signage in order for the business to be more <br />visible to potential customers, and to help new customers find his location. <br /> <br />d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the <br />same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances <br />over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. <br />The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. <br /> <br />The somewhat unique circumstance of this building is that it looks like a residential property <br />rather than a business, so the tenants rely on the ground sign to attract and direct customers to <br />their location. The building was originally constructed and used by a home builder for their <br />office. It was not built by the applicant. <br /> <br />e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. <br /> <br />A 4-foot height expansion may not alter the character of the neighborhood since it is entirely a <br />commercial area along the County Road 10 corridor where every business has a ground sign of <br />varying heights. The adjacent business has a 6 foot tall monument style sign and the other side <br />of the subject property is a wooded area. <br /> <br />f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical <br />difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. <br /> <br />The applicant feels that a 4.5-foot variance is the minimum variance needed to meet his <br />business signage needs. There is another option to expand the sign square footage that <br />doesn’t require a variance, but it’s much more expensive to make the sign wider rather than <br />taller. <br /> <br />g. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a <br />variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to <br />reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood, <br />and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to <br />and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. <br /> <br />Staff does not have any suggested conditions.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.