2015-10-07_VB_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment D b. The Comprehensive Plan, does not include any specificity with respect to signs or signage, however, the City finds that the proposed new sign is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Commercial Goals and Policies in that it represents continuing investment in an existing commercial property and its placement functions as a wall sign. c. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinances because the Sign Regulations Chapter of the Zoning Code supports wall signage for all commercial properties, and, although in this specific instance the sign that is proposed happens to be one that is prohibited, the Code cannot account for all circumstances that tenants encounter with building design. This is largely due to construction challenges for wall mount sign and the location of the sign functions more like a wall sign than a roof sign. d. The proposal makes “reasonable” use of the property because the proposed sign is placed in a location that can be viewed by customers and is installed on the portion of building in a manner that does not require major architectural and engineering modifications. In addition, the location of the sign should not create any negative impacts for traffic or adjacent properties, since the business can only be accessed via a large private parking lot and ring road e. The property possesses the kind of unique characteristics that justify the approval of the requested variance in this case are tied to the original design of the tenant space in relationship to the cooler and freezer areas, which limit placement of signage and how it is installed on the building exterior. Existing landscaping also hampers customers from viewing the sign, which, given the limited number of trees on the site, does not make practical sense to remove just to see a sign. The location is also not the typical roof sign, but is larger than other parapets and serves a similar purpose to a wall sign. f. Supporting the proposed sign and allowing it to extend 24 inches above the parapet of the tenant space façade has very minimal impact to the City. The proposed sign is well below the overall façade or parapet height of the restaurant’s exterior elevation and even further below the height of the tenant spaces on either side. Also, the sign would be viewed only from customers using the east parking lot. These items in combination have been deemed to not alter the essential character of the locality. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville Variance Board, to approve a Variance to §1010.03.C.4 (Prohibited Signs) and §1010.03.C.8 of the City Code for Rojo Mexican Grill, proprietor locating in Rosedale Mall #668, 1705 Highway 36 subject to the following conditions: a. The Rojo sign will be limited to the location, dimensions, and square footages depicted on the attachment. b. The sign must receive an approved sign permit for a sign no greater that 24 inches above the parapet wall in the location depicted on the attached illustration. Page 2 of 4