Should the Board of Trustees for the Town of Palisade Consider the Request of Yesco, LLC on behalf of Golden Gate Petroleum Company, to grant Design Variances for Requested Signage for the Golden Gate Convenience Store Proposed at 787 37 3/10 Road? The sign proposal and associated variances have been modified from previous submittals considered by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of August 7 and by the Board of Trustees at its regular meeting of September 12. The Board of Trustees, acting on an appeal as the Board of Adjustment, voted to deny requested variances, reversing the decision of the Planning Commission to grant the applicant’s request. Since the September meeting, the applicant has modified the signage design and reduced the scale of signage. The applicant is asking that the Board of Trustees consider variances to the required signage based on the recent modifications.Advertisment
At the regular meeting of August 7, the Planning Commission considered a major site plan requested by the Golden Gate Petroleum Company for the construction of a convenience store with gas sales at the location of 780 37 3/10 Road (Elberta Avenue). The development includes a store of approximately 4,160 square feet, eleven gasoline pumps, 2 canopies, and associated parking, landscaping, utilities and infrastructure for access. A separate application was made by Yesco, LLC, on behalf of the Golden Gate Petroleum Company, to install signage on the site for the proposed store. A common signage plan was submitted to the Town for administrative review. Because the requested signage exceeded maximum standards allowed in the Land Development Code, Yesco, LLC requested the Planning Commission consider design variances at the August 7 meeting. The Planning Commission granted unanimous approval of the major site plan. The Planning Commission also approved the sign variances as requested by the applicant by a vote of 5 to 1. On August 14, Tim Wedel submitted an application appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to grant approval of the variances. The Board of Trustees, acting as the Board of Adjustment, heard the variance request at the meeting of September 12 and voted unanimously to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and to deny the requested variances. A previously stated, the applicant is now requesting the Board consider variances based on recent modifications to the design and scale of signage. REQUESTED SIGNAGE: The common signage plan submitted to the Town identifies a total of twelve signs for the proposed development. The signs are summarized as follows below. Sign Details, as submitted by the applicant, are also included in the attachment to this report. The total area of requested signage encompasses 578.99 square feet or nearly 20 square feet less than previously requested. As was the case with the previous application, the total area of signage is actually less than the area of signage that is permitted for this site overall. The area of allowable signage is determined by the calculation of 1.25 square feet per linear foot of frontage on the street of greatest length. Based on that ratio, a total area of 604.93 square feet would be allowed for this development (483.95 linear feet of frontage). Even though the total signage area is less than would be permitted, variances are nevertheless, requested for individual signs that exceed the dimensional standards in the Land Development Code. In summary, the applicant is requesting a pole sign with a larger surface area and height than is otherwise permitted by the Land Development Code. Because of the larger surface area of the pole sign, the total area of the requested freestanding signage is also in excess of the standards in the Land Development Code. Finally, the applicant is requesting directional signage in excess of the standards permitted by the Code. Specifically, the applicant is requesting variances to four sections of the Land Development Code as follows: VARIANCE 1 According to Section 4.9.5A3d of the Land Development Code, the maximum height of freestanding signage is 20 feet. The applicant is requesting a pole sign along the Interstate frontage with a height of 40 feet or 20 feet in excess of the maximum allowed height. VARIANCE 2 According to Section 4.9.5A3b of the Land Development Code, when more than one freestanding sign is constructed, the total sign area shall not exceed .25 square feet per linear feet of frontage on the street of the greatest length. Based on that ratio, the maximum area of both free standing signs is 121 square feet (483.95 feet of frontage). The applicant is requesting that the area of both freestanding signs be allowed to exceed the allowed maximum of 121 square feet by 181.33 square feet or with a total area of 302.33 square feet. VARIANCE 3 According to Section 4.9.5A3a of the Land Development Code, the maximum surface area of the single side of a pole sign shall not exceed .15 square feet per linear foot of street frontage of the street on which it is oriented. Based on that ratio, the maximum area of the pole sign would be limited to no more than 72.59 square feet (483.95’ linear feet of frontage). The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed the maximum area of 72.59 square feet by 192.74 square feet. VARIANCE 4 According to Section 4.9.6. of the Land Development Code, on premises signs that direct and guide traffic and parking are exempt from the regulations if the signs are 4 square feet or less. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow 2 directional signs at the entrances and exits to exceed the maximum size of 4 square feet. The applicant is requesting two twelve square foot signs, 6 feet in height with the single purpose of directing vehicles on to and off of the site.
In an effort to be an unbiased source of information, all text in this summary comes directly from government resources.