Laserfiche WebLink
LA22-000037 <br />August 15, 2022 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br /> <br />building is peculiar but a reasonable building envelope is available for placement of the <br />monument sign in a conforming location. <br />9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which <br />the land is located. The location of the existing building and substandard street yard <br />does not apply to other properties in the district. <br />10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br />substantial property right of the applicant. The new monument sign would be located in <br />the 5’ property line setback. The applicant states the existing location of the business <br />and the curve of the right of way creates practical difficulty for the owner in allowing a <br />monument sign. Staff finds the use and enjoyment of the property is currently being <br />met with the existing business and a monument sign is and accessory structure not <br />necessary for the use of the property. <br />11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort <br />or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The applicant <br />states proposed variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or in any other respect <br />be contrary to the intent of the zoning code. The placement of the substantial sign <br />within the right-of-way may pose safety concerns to vehicular traffic due to its location <br />and considerable increased mass compared to the existing wooden sign. <br />12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but <br />is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variance for the proposed <br />monument sign would serve as a convenience as the primary use of the property is met <br />with the existing business. The proposed 0 foot setback is a convenience due to the <br />conforming building areas available. <br /> <br />The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. <br />Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the <br />impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use <br />permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. <br /> <br />Engineer Comments <br />The City Engineer reviewed and provided comments regarding the placement of a permanent <br />structure within the easement. The Engineer notes the proposed sign would not interfere with <br />the City Sewer line but recommends an encroachment agreement be required. (Exhibit F). <br /> <br />Public Comments <br />To date, no public comments have been received. <br /> <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner has designed the <br />project as to meet City Ordinance regulations? Is there opportunity to conform to <br />the City Code? <br />2. Does the Planning Commission find the proposed project necessary for the use of the <br />property? <br />3. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the <br />essential character of the neighborhood? <br />4. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the <br />impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? <br />5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?