Laserfiche WebLink
-2- <br /> • <br /> There is no record of a sign variance for this applicant. The sign <br /> ordinance went into effect around the time of the Amoco request (1986) <br /> for a setback variance for a canopy. <br /> The current applicant will be installing a new footing for the pylon <br /> sign. The clearance issue can be argued, as to reach twelve feet, the <br /> sign would be 28 feet, which might not be desirable (but allowed under <br /> ordinance) . The minimum clearance is .for safety, but no walking is <br /> present in this area. Perhaps the applicant can' landscape around the <br /> sign post so people do not walk close to the sign. The requirement of <br /> allowing one sign to identify the gasoline brand does not take into <br /> account the business structure of Stop-N-Shop. At the time the <br /> ordinance was written, it was common for major oil corporations to own <br /> their stations, whereas, now various retail companies will contract with <br /> the major oil corporations to pump their gas. Technically, one could <br /> consider the number of price signs to be two, as the four smaller signs <br /> are parallel and two on each side could be considered as one. The <br /> additional eight square feet is not much additional, considering the <br /> proposed monument sign is approximately 180 square feet under ' its <br /> maximum potential surface size. <br /> The sign variance requests meet the three conditions. Of importance is <br /> the fact the project is an existing structure which is considerably set <br /> back on the property. The situation is unique as the applicant could <br /> not correct the situation. •. <br /> I. recommend approval of the comprehensive sign plan from Stop-N-Shop <br /> Superette which would be contingent upon the applicant owning the <br /> property. The approval would not .be parcel specific. <br /> • <br />