Laserfiche WebLink
• entrances to the site which provide access to the primary tenant, and as <br />such, secondary signs on the primary building elevation are appropriate. <br />There does not, however, appear to be grounds to justify the enlargement <br />of the secondary building sign (variance request no. 4) given the increase <br />in the size of the pylon sign adjacent to the project's street frontage. <br />Approval of a variance for the increase in the size of secondary building <br />signage would be inconsistent with the privileges afforded other <br />commercial centers of a similar size and nature (variance request no. 4). <br />B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of <br />one or more substantial property rights. <br />The requests nos. 1-3 for variance will not be a detriment to the preservation <br />and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of <br />these variances are consistent with past City actions for commercial <br />centers of this size. Not allowing an increase in the size of the pylon sign <br />and secondary signage for the center would deprive the subject property of <br />privileges that the City has provided other commercial centers of a similar <br />size and nature. <br />Conversely, approval of a variance for the increase in the size of <br />• secondary building signage at Staples (variance request no. 4) would be <br />inconsistent with the privileges afforded other commercial centers of a <br />similar size and nature because: <br />1. The City sign code limits sign area on the secondary elevation of <br />this project to 50 square feet. The applicant is requesting that 62 square <br />feet of sign area be allowed which is 12 square feet or a twenty percent <br />(20%) increase from that allowed by the City's sign code; and <br />2. The applicant can physically meet the provisions of the City's sign <br />code. There are no grounds to justify the variance for the enlargement of <br />the secondary sign given the increase in the size of the pylon sign adjacent <br />to the project's street frontage and signage allowed on the primary <br />building elevation. There is no precedent that has been set by the Planning <br />Commission for supporting variances for secondary building signage in <br />excess of City code requirements. <br />C. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public <br />welfare or injurious to surrounding property. <br />Granting requests nos. 1-3 for a variance will not be materially detrimental <br />to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property as proposed. The <br />City sign code and the sign variances being supported are consistent with <br />• signage requirements of a commercial center of this size and scale. The <br />