2015-10-07_VB_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

a. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan, does 38 not include any specificity with respect to signs or signage, however, the Planning 39 Division staff finds that the proposed new sign is generally consistent with the 40 Comprehensive Plan Commercial Goals and Policies in that it represents continuing 41 investment in an existing commercial property. 42 b. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinances. 43 Planning Division staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the 44 zoning ordinances because theSign Regulations Chapter of the Zoning Code supports 45 wall signage for all commercial properties, and, although in this specific instance the sign 46 that is proposed happens to be one that is prohibited. This is largely due to construction 47 challenges for wall mount sign and the location of the sign functions more like a wall 48 sign than a roof sign. 49 c. The proposal puts the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. Planning Division 50 staff believes that the proposal makes reasonable use of the subject property because the 51 proposed sign is placed in a location that can be viewed by customers and is installed on 52 the portion of building in a manner that does not require major architectural and 53 engineering modifications. In addition, the location of the sign should not create any 54 negative impacts for traffic or adjacent properties, since the business can only be 55 accessed via a large private parking lot and ring road 56 d. There are unique circumstances to the property which were not created by the 57 landowner.Planning Division staff believes that the unique circumstances that justify the 58 approval of the requested variance in this case are tied to the original design of the tenant 59 space in relationship to the cooler and freezer areas, which limit placement of signage 60 and how it is installed on the building exterior. Existing landscaping also hampers 61 customers from viewing the sign, which, given the limited number of trees on the site, 62 does not make practical sense to remove just to see a sign. The location is also not the 63 typical roof sign, but is larger than other parapets and serves a similar purpose to a wall 64 sign. 65 e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Supporting 66 the proposed sign and allowing it to extend 24 inches above the parapet of the tenant 67 space façade has very minimal impact to the City. The proposed sign is well below the 68 overall façade or parapet height of the restaurant’s exterior elevation and even further 69 below the height of the tenant spaces on either side. Also, the sign would be viewed only 70 from customers using the east parking lot. These items in combination have been 71 deemed to not alter the essential character of the locality. 72 Section 1009.04 (Variances) of the City Code explains that the purpose of a variance is “to 73 permit adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to a 74 parcel of land or building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by the 75 zoning.” The proposal appears to compare favorably with all of the above requirements essential 76 for approving variances. 77 Roseville’s Development Review Committee (DRC) met on October 1, 2015, to discuss this 78 application, where members indicated support for the sign and the variances necessary to support 79 its installation. 80 PF15-020_RVBA_100715 Page 3 of 4