Chairperson Colling understood Walgreens desire for one single type of sign, and |
|
noted if his understanding was correct, the second monument sign was allowed and |
|
was not outside the Ordinance, but the problem was the electronic message center. In |
|
terms of property identification, he stated in coming down Hamlin Road eastbound, |
|
which is where the sign would do the most good for Walgreens, it was easily |
|
identifiable as the Walgreens driveway. He commented there was a unique geometry |
|
to the site with the gas station, and he granted someone new to the area travelling |
|
westbound on Hamlin Road, would likely miss the driveway, but they would be likely |
|
to miss it no matter what sign was there because it was a difficult, short run, and the |
|
turn lane was commonly stacked up to the point where a left turn could not be made |
|
into the Walgreens driveway from westbound Hamlin at that particular point. |
|
Mr. Brennan stated he personally liked the electronic boards because they were clean |
|
and looked nicer than the other type, but the Ordinance was clear the business was |
|
only entitled to one. He noted the applicant's application indicated "the proposed |
|
reader board would be more harmonious with the subject property by increasing the |
|
desirability and aesthetic design of the property". He stated those were not the |
|
conditions the Board had to meet, which were special conditions, deprivation of rights |
|
and substantial justice. He did not see that those conditions existed with the subject |
|
|