My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1993_0426_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1993
>
1993_0426_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/1/2011 9:23:28 AM
Creation date
10/18/2011 11:58:06 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
183
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PLANNING REPORT <br />DATE <br />CASE NUMBER* <br />APPLICANT: <br />LOCATION <br />ACTION RE UE TED <br />110 BACKGROUND <br />14 April 1993 <br />2503 <br />Signcrafters <br />(for McCarthy GMC) <br />2775 Highway 35W <br />Variance (Sign) <br />The McCarthy GMC auto dealer wants to erect a new pylon sign along- <br />Long Lake Road at the southwest corner of their property which <br />would need a variance to both height and setback standards in the <br />ode,o The applicant states (in the attached letter) that an <br />agreement was worked out with City staff before the recent changes <br />in the Sign ordinance to allow the height variance, but that the <br />sign would meet the 30F front setback. The applicant also notes <br />that signage for adjacent businesses exceeds the code standards <br />and that the GMC site suffers "complete visual obstruction". An <br />addendum to the request asks that the front setback be allowed to <br />be the sarme L a s the signs for the adj scent ear businesses. <br />2* DEVELOPMENT ALY I <br />The current Code standards require a business pylon sign to be <br />setback 30F from the front property lime and be no more than 201 <br />tall. The request is for a 281 tall pylon; the setback dimension <br />is not stated, it is requested to he 'tin line with the adjacent <br />signs" of the neighboring car dealers* <br />We are unaware of any specific agreement that was made concerning <br />the proposed signs In our opinion thecarth site does not <br />suffer from ,complete visual obstruction" ,r and the location of <br />neighboring business signs have been grandfathered in. l f and <br />when they propose new s ignage they will reed to comply with the <br />new standards We believe there is no hardship in this case that <br />justifies a variance <br />39 CONCLUSION RECOM(ENDATIO�T <br />We recommend denial of the variance request. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.