My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
901 W CASINO RD 2018-01-02 MF Import
>
Address Records
>
W CASINO RD
>
901
>
901 W CASINO RD 2018-01-02 MF Import
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2022 1:26:05 PM
Creation date
1/25/2017 6:06:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
W CASINO RD
Street Number
901
Imported From Microfiche
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
340
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
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 Mi/PM mini -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 larfer 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 />aft:e, 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 />b. Conclusion: Granting the variance may be detrimental to other <br />property in the vicinity and zone, and does not appear to <br />be necessary. <br />Criterion No. 4: That the granting of such variance will not adversely <br />affect the Comprehensive General Plan. <br />a. Finding: The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is <br />neighborhood business. The policies for Neighborhood <br />Business adopted by City Council in August. of 1987 state <br />that the purpose of this designation is to provide small <br />areas conveniently located to serve the day to day <br />consumer or convenience needs of a small neighborhood <br />area. <br />The 1987 Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Business <br />Policies also sr.ate that development should be of a size <br />and scale which preserve and enhance the residential <br />areas they are intended to serve and the size of <br />structures should be limited to a size that assures a <br />neighborhood market orientation rather than a community <br />or regional market orientation. <br />b. Conclusion: Granting the variance would allow signa that would be <br />more appropriate for a B-2, Community 9usiness zone which <br />is meant to serve population areas of from 10,000 to <br />20,000 people. The Neighborhood Business is not intended <br />to draw in customers that may not be residents of the <br />surrounding neighborhood. <br />-3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.