Laserfiche WebLink
<br />should be sufficient for this use. We try to be cognizant in our review of will the use be able to <br />accommodate peak levels, since there will be no opportunity for overflow parking on the surrounding <br />streets. This does not appear to be of concern. Off-street parking shall be established compliant with <br />Section 903.050. <br /> <br />Signage Plan <br />The applicants have proposed three variations for the design of a freestanding sign on Rice Street, <br />along with a request for two wall signs (west elevation and north elevation) on the building. Under the <br />PUD, the applicant is requesting to be allowed signage in excess of that allowed by code. As guided <br />by the R-3, High Density Residential District, Suite Living under section 903.110 for Signage <br />Regulations would be allowed the following: <br /> <br />903.110.E.2 – R-3, High Density Residential District and R-4, Mobile Home Park District: <br />a. No more than one (1) sign may be erected on the subject property, except that in the case of <br />multiple family residential complexes with more than one building, one (1) sign may be erected <br />per public street frontage. <br />b. For each property, the first sign allowed under this subsection shall be no greater than thirty- <br />five (35) square feet in area, and no greater than six (6) feet in height. <br />c. For complexes that are permitted to have a second sign under Section 903.110.E of this <br />Ordinance, the second sign may be no greater than sixteen (16) square feet in area and six (6) <br />square feet in height. <br /> <br />Within the PUD District zoning, the Planning Commission has the flexibility to allow signage that <br />varies from this standard if it is determined that this achieves a higher quality product and more <br />efficient use of the site. The applicant has indicated that although they are a residential property, they <br />also have a commercial component (i.e. turnover/need to attract residents). Therefore, they believe <br />there is a higher need to establish visual presence along Rice Street. Therefore, the applicant is <br />requesting two considerations – <br /> <br />1. To be allowed three signs – With one building using our residential standards this property <br />would be allowed only one sign (i.e. wall or freestanding). The applicant is seeking a <br />freestanding (vertical or monument style) sign and two wall signs. <br /> <br />2. To be allowed sign area greater than 35 square feet – The total sign area requested is unknown <br />at this time. The renderings submitted show the freestanding sign being between 50 to 60 <br />square feet depending on which design is approved. Then the wall sign on the west elevation is <br />noted to be approximately 20 square feet. No details were provided for the wall sign proposed <br />on the north elevation. <br /> <br />Option #1 for the freestanding sign is shown with uplighting or with an optional backlit version. <br />Option #2 is also shown with uplighting, but has an additional optional decorative gooseneck light on <br />top or a backlit version. Option #3 for the freestanding sign is a monument style with uplighting, no <br />backlit cabinet style proposed for this rendering. No additional details are provided on wall signage <br />design or mounting. <br /> <br />It would be Planning Staff’s opinion that having a freestanding sign is consistent with the area <br />(although the size is beyond what we’d allow in a residential setting). This property is surrounded by <br />properties that are either zoned commercial or PUD along Rice Street. Additionally, the three sign <br />versions proposed are smaller in sign area than what we would allow for a commercially zoned