Text · page 6 of 7
• Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance – No • Whether the request is substantial – It is not • Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district – No it will not • Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created – It is, but the balancing test favors granting the variance All members voted in favor of the motion. GRANTED Application # 6160 CECB Properties LLC – Requesting two (2) area variances for a proposed sign at 4110 St Francis Dr. (Zoned C-2) Paul Stratta, owner of NAS Sign Company, and Cal Wilson, spoke on this variance. They are looking to repurpose the existing ground sign. There have been many changes with the property over the years and they need better identification. One of the problems is the placement of the rear building on the St. Francis side. Because of this, the stores are not visible from the street, so they need to utilize the ground sign. The proposal is to add an LED display. They need one variance for total square footage, and another for the height of the sign. There are two businesses sharing one sign. The visibility on the building is a hardship because the stores are not visible from St. Francis. There will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood because the sign is similar to other signs in the neighborhood. This cannot be achieved by any other means because the stores are not visible from the street for west bound traffic. This variance is not substantial because there are other signs in the neighborhood the same size or larger. This is the minimum size to make an investment in the property and keep the businesses viable. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood because it is not an environmentally sensitive area. This problem may be self-created, however it is the minimum required to keeps these business viable. The benefit sought outweighs any negative impact. Other than that, the sign meets all other sign criteria. The Board had no further questions. Findings: Ms. Falkiewicz made a motion, seconded by Ms. Mika, to approve Application # 6160. Ms. Falkiewicz reviewed the area variance criteria as follows: • Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties – No