901 W CASINO RD 2018-01-02 MF Import

The purpose of the B-1 zone is to provide retail business and services serving primarily the residents of the surrounding neighborhood. The City contends that the 30 square feet of signage permitted in the B-1 zone is adequate to identify the business to the neighborhood using the facility, and that larger advertising signs are not appropriate in this zone. A sign larger than permitted in the B-1 zone may rend to attract customers from outside the immediate neighborhood and would therefore not meet the intent and purpose of the B-1 zone. There is an additional 1.15 acre area of the 3.8 acre site that permits B-I uses, and as that portion of the site develops, additional signs will be needed to identify those businesses. If variances are granted as the Applicant Is requesting, it would set a precedent for addirionai requests for variance in this B-1 zone, which, If granted, would not be appropriate adjacent to a residential zone. There is another B-1 zone approximately one -quarter of a mile to the east on Casino Road and Hardeson. That site has been developed an a small shopping center and is functioning without a variance from the sign code. b. Concl,tsion: 'fliers are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property or use thereof that would warrant the granting of a sign variance. Criterion No. 2: That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the appellant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. a. Finding: There is another B-1 zone on Casino and Hardeson Road and they have not requested any sign variance. In two other cases recently, the Board of Adjustment. did grant sign variances in B-1 zones; however, both of those were for property located on busy arterial streets directly across from B-2 zoned areas with no zoning restrictions on the signing. This site Is surrounded with residentially developed property. The nearest commercial activity Is 1/4 mile to the east.. b. Conclusion: Granting the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant that is already possessed by the owners of other property in the vicinity or zone. Criterion No. 3. That: the authorization of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the vicinity or zone in which the property Is located. a. Finding: The Applicant contends that for traffic safety purposes the larger pole sign is necessary so passing motorists can read the gasoline prices while approaching the site and still have time to safely make a turn in if they like the price. -2-