Laserfiche WebLink
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: <br />Criterion No. 1: <br />That the variance is necessary because of exceptional or extraordinary <br />circumstances regarding the size, shape, topography, or location of the <br />subject property; or the location oF a pre-existing improvement on tlie <br />subject property that conformed to the zonu�g code in effect when the <br />improvement was constructed. <br />a. TindinQs: The suUject propt;!y I�as an existing sign pole <br />s[ructure that was installed in or about 1968 at its present <br />location app�oximately 2 feet &om the property line abuiting <br />the streeL The sign pole lias an existing 4' X 4' double-faced <br />sign and has an overall height of approximately 12'. The <br />existing sign is for an adjacent tenant within the same building <br />as d�e applicant. The applicant proposes to utilize the existing <br />sign pole structure and add a second 4' X 4' sign for tlieir use. <br />This would increase the overall sign height to about 16' — <br />6"which typically would require an additional setback of 3' -- <br />6" from the property ]ine in order ro meet zoning code <br />requirements. <br />b. Conclusions:. The existing sign pole structure on the site was <br />installed in 1968 according to city pemiit records. The sign <br />pole was installed prior to the current zoning code and has a <br />nonconforming setback. The applicaut's proposal to install an <br />additional sign on the pole structure wouid result in a slight <br />increase to tl�e existing nonconformity but would not result in <br />any new additional nonconformities from the current zoning <br />code. <br />Criterion No. 2: <br />That tlte variance will not be materially detrimental to the property in the <br />area of tlie subject property or to the City as a �vhole. <br />a. FindiuQs:. The proposal is to install a new sign on an existing <br />sign pole structure that does not meet setback requirements. <br />2 <br />Zl5 <br />