04-09-09 Planning Comm. Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

With regard to the variance, the City is required to consider variances as to whether there is a condition of the property that creates a hardship in putting the property to a reasonable use without the variance. The applicants have suggested that the additional signage enhances public safety by ensuring that traffic along the adjoining streets will be able to see the facility better, and prepare for turns or other maneuvers. When the city considers variances, there is a presumption that in the typical case, the basic ordinance requirements constitute reasonable use of the property. A hardship condition is more commonly one that would interfere with visibility, thereby making the basic requirements inappropriate in some way. Planning staff does not see how this would be the case. The site is fully visible from both streets. Additional wall signage does not enhance visibility to the site. In this case, in fact, the issue relates more to the spacing of the signage information on the building. If the components of the wall signage were spaced more closely together, the sign area would be reduced, perhaps dramatically, allowing the same messages. As a result, we do not believe that the requirements for hardship and variance have been met. With regard to the three freestanding signs, two of the signs are for the strip center, and an existing would remain is for the Valvoline. The proposed signs, while relatively large, meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance for size, and are generally of a monument design, consistent with the architectural guidelines for Rice Street commercial district signage. The applicants have not provided separate information relating to the existing Valvoline signage in the package. However, planning staff would suggest that under the PUD, it is feasible to consider the signage proposed by the applicant, provided that as a part of the Conditional Use Permit for the PUD, the applicants include a remodeling of the Valvoline sign to be consistent with the proposed signage design, including a monument style base added to what is currently a pylon design. With this change, planning staff believes that the third sign could be found to be appropriate for the complex. With regard to the Directional/Informational signs, the City Council may approve the additional signs if found to be appropriate. In this case, most of the signs appear to be consistent with the intent of such signage - to direct traffic, rather than to increase advertising. The exception to this would be a portion of the Drive-Thru canopy signage. The applicants have proposed drive-thru identification signage on south, east, and north-facing canopy exposures. Traffic will use the drive-thru from the south, and "Do Not Enter" signs will prohibit, or at least discourage, traffic from circulating in the wrong direction from the north. There would not appear to be need to add such signage to the east wall for any reason -this wall faces an outlot and residential area, and is not visible from any traffic. The north canopy face would not appear to benefit from this signage either, although it does not appear to raise any issues for adjoining property or traffic. Planning staff would recommend that "Drive-Thru Pharmacy" signage be eliminated from the east and north walls of the canopy signage plan.