Laserfiche WebLink
b. Conclusion: Granting the variance is not necessary for the <br />preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property <br />right. of the Applicant that is already possessed by the <br />owners of other property in the vicinity or zone. <br />Criterion No. 3. That the authorization of such variance will not: be <br />materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious <br />to property in the vicinity or zone in which the property <br />is located. <br />a. Finding,: The Applicant contends that for traffic safety purposes <br />the larger pole sign is necessary so passing motorists <br />can read the gasoline prices while approaching the site <br />and at.ill have time to safely make a turn in if they like <br />the price. <br />b. Conclusion: <br />Criterion No. 4: <br />The City's position is that, the purpose and intent, of the <br />Neighborhood Business zone (as set forth in the Zoning <br />Code) is to serve residents of the surrounding <br />neighborhood and that they will soon become familiar with <br />the products and prices offered and so will not need to <br />be attracted by advertised prices. The same holds true <br />for the increased signing on the building itself - the <br />people residing in the neighborhood will soon become <br />aware of the hours of operation and prices and products <br />offered. The 30-square feet, of wall sign permitted by <br />Code appears to be adequate to identify the business as <br />an Arco AM/PM mint -mart. <br />In addition, since the B-1 zone one -quarter mile to the <br />east. on Casino Road is abiding by the sign requirements <br />in the B-1 code, it may give the subject property an <br />unfair advantage if they were allowed larger signs. <br />Aesthetically speaking, larger signs may have an adverse <br />effect on the residential character of the neighborhood. <br />The owner of a multiple family project adjacent to the <br />site, Fred Bence, has verbally expressed opposition to a <br />variance for signage on the basis that the applicant is <br />trying to use a "cookie cutter" design, and instead, they <br />should design something that would be compatible with a <br />residential neighborhood. <br />Granting the variance may be detrimental to other <br />property in the vicinity and zone, and does not appear to <br />be necessary. <br />That. the granting of such variance will not adversely <br />affect. the Comprehensive General Plan. <br />a. Finding: The Comprehensive Plan designation for <br />neighborhood business. The policies for <br />Business adopted by City Council in August <br />that the purpose of this designation to to <br />areas conveniently located to serve the <br />consumer or convenience needs of a small <br />area. <br />-3- <br />this site is <br />Neighborhood <br />of 1987 state <br />provide small <br />day to day <br />neighborhood <br />