Laserfiche WebLink
SUMMARY <br />J. To allow variation from the provisions of this Ordinance including setbacks, <br />height, lot area, width and depth, yards, etc. <br />Consideration of whether a project is consistent with these objectives is based on <br />a case -by -case judgment by City officials. The applicant has suggested that the <br />center's unique siting and visibility issues have resulted in long term difficulties in <br />maintaining tenants and keeping the retail spaces full. He has stated that the <br />additional signage proposed for the freestanding structure along Rice Street will <br />help provide individual tenant identification and resolve at least some of the <br />visibility issues he currently faces. <br />Moreover, the applicant had suggested that upgrades to the color scheme will be <br />more consistent with the City's Architectural Guidelines by minimizing back- <br />lighted white space on the sign. These conditions, according to the applicant's <br />request, are intended to justify the large sign area. <br />As noted, the City has a great degree of discretion in considering such PUD <br />amendments. The zoning regulations are considered to be a guide in these <br />applications, and may be applied or considered guidelines. The current sign <br />greatly exceeds the individual sign area regulations, although it is consistent with <br />the total amount of freestanding sign area allowed by the code. As also noted, <br />the shopping center has additional allowable wall signage under the language of <br />the regulations the issue relates to the code language relating specifically to <br />freestanding signs. <br />The Marketplace sign is already much larger than any other freestanding signs in the <br />Rice Street corridor. Expanding the sign beyond its current 400 square feet is proposed <br />by the applicant to be justified by tenant needs and design changes proposed to the <br />sign itself. Because this is a PUD application, not a variance, the City has discretion to <br />consider the amendment without concern over hardship tests that come up in variance <br />applications. Due to the policy nature of this decision, planning staff has not made a <br />specific recommendation on this application. <br />pc: Kathy Glanzer <br />Steve Westerhaus <br />Robert Grootwassink <br />6440 Flying Cloud Drive, Suite 203, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 <br />15 <br />