pf_02177 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

T a.....rb Development, Case No. 2177 Page 3 4. CONCLUSION If the City Council had already approved the proposed design standards, some of the policy issues surrounding this application would be more clear. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Commission and City Council members are supportive of the use of ground signs and that this application would comply with the proposed height and setback requirements. The individual signs also comply with the proposed sign area regulations, but since there are two of them, this would result in some 40 square feet of sign area in excess of the standard. The key difference comes in the fact that this proposal would result in trading the right to put up another pylon sign for the right to install two ground signs, as opposed to one. This is a judgment call for the Planning Commission and City Council. In the past the approval of site plans in the Shopping Center District has included the approval of variances, without the demonstration of a hardship, in the true sense of that word. We would strongly prefer the use of PUD zoning to accomplish this design flexibility, but that option is not available at this time. This request should be evaluated in the context of the impact of the addition of these two ground signs and this impact should be weighed against the impact of the addition of another pylon sign with up to 200 square feet of sign area. If you believe that the approval of these variances from both existing and proposed standards would not violate the general purpose and intent of the code, the application should be approved. It is clearly a discretionary approval and a case could be made for both sides of the request.