My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02332
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2300
>
pf_02332
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:47:49 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 11:09:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2332
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
1717 LEXINGTON AVE N
Applicant
SEEGER, ROBERT F.
Status
APPROVED
PIN
152923440010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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
<br />seeger/Horwest, Case Ho. 2332 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />building. This proposed wall signage is illustrated on <br />the attached drawings. <br /> <br />The proposed signage would be placed slightly <br />differently on the north and south sides of the <br />building, given the different visibility problems north <br />and south of the site. On the south side, the signage <br />would start 11' back from the front of the building, or <br />set back 51' from the Lexington Avenue right-of-way. On <br />the north side, it would start 29' back from the front, <br />or 69' from the right-of-way line. The existing signage <br />on these north and south faces (small rectangular <br />Norwest logo) would be removed. <br /> <br />3. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />We believe there is a practical difficulty in locating a pylon <br />sign on site that will be reasonably visible, given the <br />existing adjacent signage and the placement of the building on <br />the site. We believe, therefore, that a variance of some sort <br />is appropriate in order to provide relief from these <br />conditions. <br /> <br />The approach that has been proposed is reasonable and <br />consistent with the overall sign size standards in the Code. <br />The total amount of signage on the building would be the same <br />as if a pylon sign were built. But, significantly, that <br />signage would be placed on the existing building face instead <br />of on a free-standing pylon sign, and it would be set back <br />much farther from the front property line than a pylon sign <br />would be. <br /> <br />We recommend approval of the variance request with the <br />condition that no additional signage, whether in the form of a <br />pylon sign or additional wall signage, be allowed for the <br />building, other than small directional signs, unless revisions <br />to the Code are made in the future that would make such a <br />request reasonable. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.