1975_0609_CC_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case Number 9Q0 - 75 June 4, 1975 Page Twa canstructed acrass the s�reet, thereby adversely a�fecting some of the visisbility potentiai for the hotel. It.was sugg�sted by the appl7cant that the p7acing of the sign on the roof a� the structure wou7d solve their problem as it re7ates particular7y �o the visibiiity of the hote7 and its signing �or southbound traf�ic on 35��. Rt that time it was suggested by the Planning Commission and Staff tha� �he ra�sing of t�e existing pyion sign in its present ioca�ion mig�t well improve the signing situation purposes putting. the neon sign on the roaf as propos�d. 7he principal reason for this is the exis�ane� af a large clump of trees contiguous to High4�a.y 35W to the north of the site wh�ch adversely affects the visibi�ity a� the proposed roof sign_ The City approved th� roof sign propasal at that time, but the applicants d�d. not move �he sign fron� the face of the bu�lding to the roof having uitimate7y determined that it would not solve the probl em. Recently th� applicants have ca7led on a consultant from the t�oliday Inn chain Urho recommended the addit�ana� �ylon sign current7y in question. 2. The atiached sketch ir�dicates the proposed loca�ian of the sign a�rhieh is to be 30 feet back f rom �he righ-of-way and placed between the existing flag pol� and the existing pylon sign shown on the dra,ving. At a distance 50 �eet norii� af and south of the proposed pylon sign the applicant proposes to construci a series ofi four floodlights on each of t►�ro poles wh-ich wi1� b� ten feet in th� air. The purpose for these lights is ta e�im�nate the sign to be placed an the top of t�e sing7e pylor� pole. The current sign regulations a17aw a sign on 8-2 property contiguous to a freet�ray to be 45 feet high and 225 square �eet in area. lJhere proper�i�s are 1o�ated in adverse circumstances af caurse, it is appropriate to consider a reasanable variance to these requirements. The exis�ing sign is o-F coursz 45 fe�t h�gh with a 400 square feet in area. It is true however that �he existing sign is nat of adequa�e height to be proper��y se�n either from the south or from the north for� traf�ic traveling 35!J: 3_ 6�Je are fearful of the implications of the gran�ing of the permit far a second �,ylon sir�n at the extrer�e height requestea_ The admin- istratian of zoning ordinances are requ�red by the cour-Ls io b� fair and consis�er�t. The precedence of the approvai of the s�gn in quest�on 5n the -Form of a second pylan ir� addition to the h°ight Vaou�d abvYOUSIy have same significance in cansidering other tiropasal5 uJhich may be applied for on the part of other properti�s ancl a�iners in the City. T1�us we suggest great care in considering the proposal. Sorr�e opti onal soi ca�ti ans mi gi�t be c�nsi dered: