Laserfiche WebLink
Little Canada <br />Sixteen feet plus one foot per three feet additional setback (21 <br />feet maximum). <br />Previous surveys have been quoted specifically as they may relate <br />to maximum height. These surveys were done in part to respond to <br />Slumberland's request as a measure of sign allowances, but those <br />surveys do not necessarily correspond to the Fina situation. <br />Because sign ordinances are so individualized, it is often <br />inappropriate to generalize one restriction from City to City, <br />development to development. <br />If the City wishes to amend its Sign Ordinance in this regard, <br />there are a number of options which may be followed. First is a <br />Freeway Sign Overlay District which could be placed on top of the <br />base land use zoning. Under such an overlay district, sign <br />heights could be made to be standard, or could be graduated by <br />lot or building size, similar to the current table for all <br />districts. The second option is to restructure the allowable <br />height for 8-2 or 8-3 Districts, then rezone the areas necessary <br />to accommodate freeway exposure. The third is to restructure the <br />current free - standing sign table to allow larger signs in all <br />categories. <br />If the City wishes to pursue larger signs, of the three options, <br />we recommend the first. Although this would involve the <br />establishment of a new Ordinance for a Freeway Overlay District, <br />it would likely better accomplish the objective and may result in <br />fewer administrative problems. The problem with a base zoning <br />district approach is that the City's zoning districts are not set <br />up to recognize freeway exposure as a criteria for performance <br />standards. Most of Rice Street is zoned B -3 and thus would be <br />permitted the same allowances that freeway- oriented B -3 <br />businesses would. The City could rezone freeway interchange <br />areas to 8-2, Auto - Oriented Business District, however, many <br />existing uses in these areas may not fit an "auto- oriented" <br />designation. <br />The third option would raise sign allowances across the board. <br />It is our understanding that this is not the objective of this <br />review. One other approach which should be mentioned is an <br />ordinance allowing certain uses to have higher signs. This <br />approach is strongly recommended to be avoided, as most planning <br />law recognizes a City's review authority by zoning district <br />rather than by individual use. <br />Page 13 <br />