PL PACKET 11191991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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