11114LEE COUNTY

r. rz:=. rel!^<, ro

Lee County/ Leesburg/ Smithville Planning CommissionTROY GOLDEN CHRIS GUARNIERI

Chairman Vice Chairman

CLAY GRIFFITH, MARK WORD, DARREL FINNICUM, JASON SHEFFIELD, CHAD ARNOLD

Planning Commissioners

MEETING MINUTES

June 25, 2020

T. PAGE THARP GOVERNMENTAL BUILDING— Kinchafoonee Room

6: 00 P. M.

Members Present: Troy Golden, Chris Guameiri, Clay Griffith& Chad Arnold

Members Absent: Mark Word, Darrel Finnicum& Jason Sheffield

Staff Present: Rozanne Braswell& Amanda Nava

Public Present: Samee Ali& Dan Brown

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

Chairman Troy Golden called the meeting to order at 6: 00 p. m.Amanda Nava read the Georgia Law regarding campaign contributions.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 7, 2020

Clay Griffith made a MOTION to recommend APPROVAL of the May 7, 2020 minutes with a second by ChadArnold and vote was unanimous for APPROVAL.

III. NEW BUSINESS

County Land Use Applications

RaceTrac Petroleum, LLC( Z20- 0031: has submitted an application to the Lee County Planning Commissionrequesting a variance to allow a combined aggregate square footage of 200 sq. ft. on 1 sign face. Theproperty' s owner is CB Acres, LLC; the applicant is Samee Ali( on behalf of RaceTrac Petroleum). Theproperty is located at US Highway 82 West and Fussell Road in Land Lot 263, 2nd District, Lee County,Georgia.

Rozanne Braswell presented a powerpoint presentation providing information from staff recommendation onthe variance request. Variance from( c) Signs permitted in the C- 1, C- 2, C- 3, AG and I zoning districts:

1) Ground signs: a. One double- faced sign per street frontage. Maximum square footage for each sign face

shall be two square feet for each linear foot of building frontage facing the public right- of-way, or one squarefoot for each linear foot of street frontage on the public right- of- way, whichever is larger, provided that no signface may exceed 100 square feet. Maximum height for each sign structure shall be 30 feet for arterialroadways and 20 feet for all other street classifications.

Variance from Sec. 70- 644 may not be granted unless all of the criteria authorizing the variance are met:There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property inquestion because of its size, shape or topography, and;

The application of the chapter to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessaryhardship, and;Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved, and;Release if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public interest or impair the

purposes and intent of the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance Sign Regulations.It does not appear that variance criteria has been met. Staff recommends denial of the requested variance.

Mr. Ali explained the reason for the variance application was to ensure that their competitive gas prices

would be clearly visible on Highway 82. He stated the allowance of 2 signs on the lot would not beaesthetically pleasing. Mr. Ali proceeded with his presentation and compared the distance of visibility inreference to the allowable 100 sq. ft. sign, and the proposal of their 200 sq. ft. sign, The 100 sq. ft. signwould have a visibility of 360 ft. and the 200 sq. ft. sign would be visible for 600+ ft., which he believes is vitalsince Highway 82 is a 55 mph road.

Chris Guarnieri expressed concern over the surrounding gas stations wanting to upgrade their signs if theRaceTrac sign variance was approved. In turn, the neighbor gas station( Chevron) would be hindering thevisibility of Racelrac's sign, if they were to get approval for a 200 sq. ft sign. Rozanne mentioned thesurrounding gas stations on Highway 82 may want to upgrade their signs if this variance is granted and theywould need to have the same equal protection.

Chris Guarnieri made a motion to DENY the sign variance. Motion was seconded by Chad Arnold.Planning Commission voted to DENY unanimously.

Final vote will be held by the Lee County Board of Commissioners on July 28, 2020.

Troy Golden Chris Guarnieri Chad Arnold Mark Word Jason Sheffield Darrel Finnicum Clay GriffithNo No No Absent Absent Absent No

IV. ADJOURNMENT

Clay Griffith made a motion for adjournment with a second by Chad Arnold and vote was unanimous foradjournment at 6: 36 pm.

B/ 6/ 20 20Troy Golden, Chairman Date

r,e)

tyan,,,z— 41, 414//- eee - g/la/ 00Rozaohe Braswell, Director of Planning, Zoning& Engineering Date

7/ 10/ 2020

ti N

III 0

aJJI.

UA

IEE COUNTY D

CUJ

Planning Commission fuKc25. 2020

Location Map

v

si

VarianceIM IM

Application _ N-

Applicant: Samee Ali

Owner: RaceTrac Petroleum (`no- ooal 1 `; 1 S,

E

r

o

fir• 1s

esA

1

7/ 10/ 2020

Aerial Map

K

Basic Information

w RaceTrac gas station/

convenience store

Frontage on US 82/ 520

4,4,,‘ '

arterial) and on Fussell

1"

Road ( collector)

Variance is being askedfor a 200 sq ft sign

Ordinance has a maxium

100 sq ft sign limit

Aware bre*,-„-„ Property is zoned C- 2

f TY A

Al

C- 2 DISTRICT

Allows one double- faced ground sign per streetfrontage

Max height of 30 ft on an arterial road

Max height of 20 ft for other road classifications

Allows for window and wall signs

All multi- tenant lots having less than 25, 000 square feet ofgross leasable area are permitted for wall signage

Each individual establishment is allowed wall signage as

though it was an individual building with individual streetfrontage

An additional double- faced ground sign shall be permitted

Not to exceed 32 square feet per sign face

Maximum height of 25 feet.

7/ 10/ 2020

PLANNING. CONSIDERATIONS

There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to theparticular piece ofproperty in question because of its size, shape ortopography

Property has frontage on Fussell Road and US 82; the applicant' s Letter ofIntent states that the hardship is due to the unique shape of the site andthe canopy and building have poor visibility on Hwy 82. a

The need for larger signage is based on the concept that the geographicalfootprint at the intersection provides limited space to place a price sign for

maximum visibility and that a secondary price sign would be more of an

eyesore.Subject property has approximately 640 feet of road frontage along US82/ 52, which would allow for appropriate distance( 120' minimum)

between a primary( Raceway) and secondary ground sign( tenants),Signage could be installed on the US 82 frontage, away from theintersection of Fussell Road.

Applicant must demonstrate an unnecessary hardship due to extraordinaryand exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of propertybecause of its size, shape or topography.

The application of the chapter to this particularpiece ofproperty would create an unnecessaryhardship

Applicant has submitted a Letter of Intent for Variance Request 1to allow for 200 sq. ft. sign face, in lieu of maximum 100 sq. ftsign face, on ground sign fronting US 82.A double faced ground sign is allowed per street frontage and a

request for ground sign for future tenants fronting Fussell Roadis acceptable.

The variance request represents a 100% variance, double the

allowed sign face amount.

Subject property has more than adequate road frontage on US82 to support two ground signs.

Road frontage is primarily a straight line with limited sightobstructions.

Signage could be installed along road frontage outside of the US82/ Fussell Road intersection.

1

7/ 10/ 2020

An unnecessary hardship does not appear to be demonstrated, theBoard of Commissioners will make a decision on this fact. The intent

and purpose of the sign regulations is not to impose an outright ban on

signs, but instead to:

1) Balance the right of individuals to convey their messages through signs and theright of the public to be protected against the unrestricted proliferation of signs;

2) Further the objectives of the county' s comprehensive land use planning;3) Protect the public health, safety and welfare;

4) Reduce traffic and pedestrian hazards;

5) Maintain the historical and cultural heritage and image of the county; and6) Protect property values by minimizing the possible adverse effects and visual blight

caused by signs;

7) Avoid the harmful aspects of the unrestricted proliferation of signs;8) Promote economic development and tourism;

9) Protect private property values; and

10) Ensure the fair consistent enforcement of sign regulations.

Granting of a 200 square foot sign face, in lieu of the 100 square foot maximumrepresents a 100% variance, doubling the amount of allowed signage.

If granted, the signage could be considered contrary to the intent and purpose ofthe sign regulations and could cause adverse impacts related to visual blight.

Four existing businesses, similar to the proposed Raceway, operate and displaysignage compliant with the ordinance.

116

111

ry

w_ .`_ g „

h• 11111111r"• i i —. _— i

21‘ 1405 US 82 Chevron( Perry Bros Oil Co, Inc.) 1 acre parcel with 259' of frontage on 82, supporting a 2, 952sq ft convenience store and 1. 958 drive thnu car wash on a corner lot I ground sign Developed in 1997

5J

7/ 10/ 2020

wo-

Iill NI ii.

1250 US 82 BP( Appleton Land Dev LLC). 98 acre parcel with 275' of road frontage on 82, supporting a3, 300 sq. ft. convenience store and Subway on a corner lot( N Doublegate Drive/ US 82). I ground sign: 2

allowed. Develo.- d in 1990.

s•

1211 US 82 Salt Lick( Salt South, LLC) 2. 87 acre parcel with 314' of road frontage, supporting a 12, 072 sq.ft. grocery store on a corner lot( Tower Place Lane/ US 82). I ground sign although 2 are allowed. Developed

in 2013.

6

7/ 10/ 2020

611

t

l

1295 US 82 Citgo( Whatley Oil Co, Inc.) 3 acre parcel with 309' road frontage on 82, supporting a 2, 992 sq.it convenience store and a 3, 096 square toot retail space. 2 ground signs- primary and secondary for multi-

tenants. Developed in 2005.

Such conditions are peculiar to the particular

piece ofproperty involvedThe applicant relies on signage to market fuel offerings and because the

proposed sign will be located approximately 360' from US Hwy 82 the

visibility is minimized from traffic on Fussell Road and US Hwy 82.

The Letter of Intent states that the distance only allows the signage offer

to be seen once you are already making a left or right handed turn anddoes not allow adequate time for drivers to turn into the station; creating

safety hazards.

Applicant indicates the sign placement at the intersection creates an

unnecessary hardship.

The sign ordinance permits various types and sizes of signage dependent

on the amount of road frontage and additional signage is permitted formulti- tenant commercial activities.

A second 32 square foot ground sign could be installed facing US 82 to

provide signage for the 2 tenants in the RaceTrac building.

Property has sufficient road frontage to support two ground signs andboth wall and window signage.

7

7/ 10/ 2020

Additionally, increased sign face is allowed for wall signsas indicated below:

Article XIX.- Sign Regulations, Sec. 70-644.- Permitted signs by zoning district3) Wall signs:

a. Maximum square footage for wall signs shall be two square feet for each linear foot ofbuilding frontage on the public right-of-way, or one square foot for each linear foot ofstreet frontage on the public right- of-way, whichever is larger, provided that no sign facemy exceed 100 square feet, except as provided in subsection b., below.b. Where the structure upon which a wall sign is located is greater than 50 feet from the

right- of-way of the nearest public street, the maximum square footage shall be os

follows:Distance from woll sign to maximum surface area, os the right-of-way of the determinedin subsection a. abutting street frontage above, may be multiplied by o factor of:50- 100 feet 1. 5( but no larger than 150 square feet)

100- 175 feet 2( but no larger than 200 square feet)

175- 250 feet 2. 5( but no larger than 250 square feet)

250+ feet 3( but no larger than 300 square feet)

c. Wall signs may be located on multiple walls provided each sign faces a street orparking lot and the total square footage of the signs does not exceed what is set forth

above.4) Signs on multi-tenant lots:a. On all multi- tenant lots having less than 25, 000 square feet of gross leasable area,each individual establishment shall be permitted wall signage as though each individual

establishment was on individual building with individual street frontage. Where suchmulti- tenant premises has a frontage of 200 lineal feet or more on either an arterial orcollector street, an additional double- faced ground sign shall be permitted, not to exceed32 square feet per sign face, and no greater than 25 feet in height. Such additional

ground sign shall be no closer than 120 feet from the primary ground sign on the lot.

Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece ofproperty involved emit..Subject property

hap,-. • -oad front. - US 82/ 520 to support two grog. , is.

The road frontage is comprised of approximately 640 feet laid out in a straight line withlimited sight obstructions.

Development plans indicate a deceleration lane from US 82 at the side property line; a36' wide truck entrance/ drive will be constructed providing ingress/ egress to the dieselcommercial fuel canopy and continued travel around the rear perimeter to Fussell Road.

Additional signage is permitted for Fussell Road frontage.

Applicant is designing and creating site configuration, including sign placement andbuilding and canopy design.

Release if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public interest or impairthe purposes and intent of this chapter, provided, however, that no variance may be grantedfor a use of land or building which is prohibited by this article. The county will control theactual use ofproperties through zoning and conditional uses and not through variance

Variance from Sec. 70- 644 may not be granted unless all of the criteria authorizing thevariance ore met:

The application of the chapter to this particular piece of property would create anunnecessary hardship, and;

Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved, and;Release if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public interest or impair

the purposes and intent of the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance SignRegulations.

It does not appear that variance criteria has been met. Staff recommends denial of therequested variance.