My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02503
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2500
>
pf_02503
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:55:19 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 11:48:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2503
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
2775 HWY 35 W
Applicant
SIGNCRAFTERS/ROBERT YURECKO
Status
DENIED
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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 />/I <br /> <br />jl t:;b :J <br /> <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />DATE: 4-26-93 <br />ITEM NO.: r-:-lf <br /> <br />~6-- <br /> <br />Agenda section: <br />Reports and <br />Recommendations <br /> <br />Department Approval: <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Manager Reviewed: <br /> <br />Item Desoription: <br /> <br />Signorafters Inc. request for a variance at <br />2775 Highway 35W (Mccarthy's Oldsmobile GMC). <br /> <br />Backaround: <br /> <br />1. The City's sign ordinances were recently amended and reduced <br />the maximum height of a pylon sign from 25 feet to 20 feet in <br />the B-3 zoning district. The sign regulations also require <br />that pylon signs be setback 30 feet from a property line <br />adjacent to a street. <br /> <br />2. Signcrafters Inc., on behalf of McCarthy's Oldsmobile GMC, is <br />requesting a variance to allow a pylon sign to be 28 feet <br />tall and for a setback variance to match other existing signs <br />in the area. <br /> <br />3. The Roseville Planning Commission unanimously recommended <br />denial of the variance request based on there being no <br />hardship present, that the city has worked hard to adopt new <br />sign regulations and the City should be working to bring <br />properties into compliance with the new regulations. The <br />Planning Commission, in a separate motion, requested that <br />the city Council reevaluate it's decision to not adopt <br />ordinance revisions to amortize existing non-conforming <br />signs over a ten year period based on this case and the-need <br />to bring signs in conformance with the new regulations over <br />time. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />1. Approve the variance request based on the finding that a <br />hardship exists to justify the variance. <br /> <br />2. Deny the variance based on the finding that no hardship is <br />present on the site to justify the variance. <br /> <br />Policy Obiectives: <br /> <br />1. To insure that development occurs consistent with the City's <br />zoning and sign ordinances. <br /> <br />2. To grant variances where hardships exist on the site. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.