PL MINUTES 10051982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-5- (J) The firm's business studies have indicated 25 parking spaces would be sufficient for-their restaurant but they have never- theless agreed to provide 34 spaces . (2) Under a verbal agreement, the landowner, the C. G. Rein Company, would .provide any additional parking which might be necessary . (3) . There is .ample .parking immediately adjacent. to- this site to provide the additional parking to satisfy the ordinance intent, and it would therefore cause an undue hardship to require Zantigo KFC Company to provide 18 additional spaces . (4) Since 25 percent of the restaurant 's business represents a drive-in facility, vehicles are parked on the site for only about 5 minutes . (5) The intent of the ordinance probably never envisioned the application of the parking requirements. to a shopping center where ample common parking is provided ,at all times . (6) The five .parking spaces provided for the drive-up facility were not considered in the 34 proposed by the petitioners and if they were accepted as parking spaces , the deficiency in spaces could be reduced. Motion carried unanimously. The third request from the Zantigo Company was considered next. • This was for a free standing monument type sign in.-front of the restaurant on Silver Lake Road. A request for a .pylon sign was withdrawn. Mr. George said there would be two 4 X 7 signs on the building itself similar, but smaller., than those on the photos of other facilities, but there is also a need for a 7 foot high sign to identify their business to prospective customers , because the restaurant business "is still an impulse business" . He believed the sign would also be viewed as a safety measure to let the "mother with three children in her car know the restaurant is there in time .for her to make a . safe turn into the shopping center. Mr. Berg had .described the sign in his. cover letter as having a three foot high base and a 4 X 8 overall width and said Zantigo's would be well within the 96 square feet of. signage they are permitted for the building they propose considering -the sign's configuration. Mr. Makowske commented that under .the .new sign ordinance the Com- mission has before it for its final reading, there would be no variance required- for this sign. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that he perceives the -rationale which the Commission used to justify the parking variance would now seem to work against the request for the sign variance. He said if less • parking is needed for a .building which is located in a vast area of undeveloped land in a shopping center because the restaurant is in that shopping center, then there should probably ..not be any more signage permitted them than is permitted the other tenants in the