Laserfiche WebLink
Case �umber: 900 - 75 <br />June 4, 1974 <br />Page Three <br />Gould the applicants consider in yreater detaZl the <br />poss�bility of raising the ex�sting sign so as to be <br />reasonably visible for traffic on 35!�? Because the <br />property in question is iow in relationship to the <br />h�ghway grade, �he gran�ng a� a height variance to <br />the existing sign could v�reil �e a reasonable so7uti.�n. <br />Cauld the new s.ign proposed be substituted for the <br />ex�sting sign and reduced ir� height so as to accomplish <br />the princi�al objective of achieving good sight visibili�y <br />withoui having two py7�on 53JilS at such extreme height? <br />If the ex�sting pylor� sign is retair�ed as �s, �vha� is <br />the minimum height and size for an add��ianal �y7an <br />that might be appropriate in 501V1n� til� visuai <br />prob7em? <br />4. It is 7ikely t1�at mos� persons agree that the hotei �s an asset <br />ta �h� Ci ty of Rosevi 13 e, and to our kna+,�l edge � s a we� l--managed <br />facility. Cer�ainly, it �s appropriate for the City to cansider <br />reasonable measures that can be talcen �a provide reasonable <br />signing conditions cansisten� with the standards of the hotel <br />industry. We sUggesi as an initiai s�ep toward ar� ultimaie solut�on <br />that the app7icants be q�estion�d regarding the f�asabi7ity of <br />o� one or more of t�2 optians no�ed in ti�is report. It would seem <br />that the r�placement or t�� raising of the existing pyion sign would <br />offer �he more reasonable al�ernat�ve. Of great sigrtificance �o <br />�hese co�sidera�ions wou1d be �he de�ermination on th� part of <br />the app�icant of the exac� height needed to accomplis� the in�ended <br />purp�se. <br />