2005-12-01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD -2- 12/1/05 VALERO SERVICE STATION (FORMERLY TEXACO) 2558 SOUTH AVE. Next on the agenda was the application of Valero Service Station (formerly Texaco) located at 2558 South Avenue. Applicant stated he was reappearing with a revised submission from last month taking into account all of the Plauning Board's concerns. He stated the new submission was within the allowable square footage of the Zoning Ordinance and therefore a variance would not be necessary, the lighting was external as opposed to internal, base would be provided with aesthetic planter for road sign and they provided color samples for Board's consideration. He also showed a computer preview of what new sign would look like on the site and where it would be in connection with the adjacent property owner's sign (Mr. Indovino) and to assure Board it did not conflict with Mr. Indovino's sign. He went on to say they revised the canopy sign to just a logo. This evening he was proposing two signs - a flag sign (which is what the applicants prefer) with a total square footage including the canopy of 113 sq. ft. which is 3 sq. ft. under the allowable square footage. The flag sign would be 16 ft. in height. Applicant went on to state he feels the flag sign would be less conflict with Mr. Indovino's sign. The second sign they proposed is a two pole sign (which is the sign the Planning Board prefers). This sign would be 12 ft. in height and a total square footage including the canopy sign would be 113.6 sq. ft. - still under the allowable square footage. Applicant feels you can still see Mr. Indovino's sign but the outermost post may present a slight conflict. Mr. Morris asked applicant where the pictures were taken from and applicant stated they were taken from the Valero site. Mr. Morals then asked if applicant had taken any pictures from roadway or sidewalk showing just how the signs would line up and applicant stated no he had not. Applicant went on to state that even though he does not have a picture he went onto the street and sidewalk and got down to about the height of a driver's eye and there was no conflict with Mr. Indovino's sign. He also stated the new road sign would be a minimum of 5feet from the property line. Mr. Indovino stated he was concerned about the new sign obstructing Iris existing road sign. Mr. Morris stated with both signs being set the same distance from the road - as soon as you are on the sidewalk he felt there is no obstruction to Mr. lndovino's sign. At this point at Mr. Morris' invitation Mr. Indovino looked at the computer image of the proposed signs. Mr. Alfonso made a motion to approve the signs contingent upon the following: (1) sign is down lit and wattage of bulbs will be approved by the Code Enforcement Officer - if Mr. Brntting finds the wattage to be objectionable he will inform applicant who would then lessen the wattage, (2) It would be a two pole sign - maximum height 12 ft., (3) planter at base of sign to be stone masonry - 24" in height and (4) low plantings not to exceed 12" in height and applicant agreed to confer with Mr. Indovino on the plantings. Motion seconded by Mr. McCormick. Unanimously carried. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 2568 SOUTH AVENUE