2014-02-05_VB_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

b. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinances. Planning Division staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance whereby a setback of some amount is necessary from the front property line. This is a case, however, where meeting such a requirement cannot be achieved due to pre-existing features. c. The proposal puts the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. Planning Division staff believes that the proposed sign offers the multi-tenant building a reasonable way to communicate to the public those tenants that lease space; which is reasonably afforded to other properties as well. d. There are unique circumstances to the property which were not created by the landowner.Planning Division staff finds that uniqueness of this property is tied to its original construction, which occurred when a different set of requirements existed. The property lies behind 100 feet of railroad right-of-way and is mostly covered by building or asphalt, which leaves few options for signage, except for the small strip in front of the building. For those reasons, Planning Division staff believes that the property possesses the unique characteristics that justify the approval of the requested . VARIANCE e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. While the proposed freestanding sign will be a few feet closer to the property line than other freestanding signs approved under the Master Sign Plan process, it is, by no means, the first to be 1 to 2 feet from a property line, and given other properties along County Road C with similar situations, it may not be the last. For this reason, the , if approved, would not negatively alter the character of the signage within VARIANCE the area or the City. 5.6Section 1009.04 (Variances) of the City Code explains that the purpose of a is VARIANCE “to permit adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to a parcel of land or building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by the zoning.” The proposed sign appears to compare favorably with all , and Planning Division staff of the requirements essential for approving VARIANCES believes that the pre-existing situation of the site and the limited ability toinstall a freestanding sign in compliance with the required minimum setback represents a practical difficulty that the process is intended to relieve. VARIANCE 6.0PC UBLICOMMENT At the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff has received no comments or questions from the public about the request. VARIANCE 7.0R ECOMMENDATION 7.1Based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 4 – 6 of this report, the Planning Division recommends approval of the requested pursuant to VARIANCE §1009.04 of the Roseville City Code with the condition that the property line be verified prior to the issuance of the Sign Permit. PF14-001_RVBA_020514 Page 3 of 4