SP-075 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i \ \ J , SP-75 -3- Nov. 9,1976 There is also an option suggested as to the canopy sign for Clark Pharmacy, where the existing f.!.8" x 16' sign is proposed to be moved to the front of the canopy and lowered slightly in order that its top would be on the same line with the tops of the 36" high_signs erected for the other businesses. It also appears that there are some options in regard to thelground sign, although the sign plan is unclear in this regard. Apparently, the 48" x 16' sign is proposed to be converted to a ground sign if not permitted to remain on the canopy. If converted to a ground sign, it is unclear if it is to totally replace the existing ground sign or if it would be in addition to the ground sign mentioned for Brighton Optical. Lastly, it is unclear whether the existing ground sign is proposed to remain .as is if the canopy sign is allowed to remain on the canopy, of if the ground sign will be modified by eliminating the panel for Clark Pharmacy, or if it will be modified by adding a larger panel for Clark Pharmacy. In any case, it should be pointed out. that the basic code provision for ground signs on buildings of multiple occupancy in business districts is that they be not more than 64 square feet in. area, 20 feet in height and identify the building only, Different requirements can, however, be allowed as part of the special use permit. We understand that it is also the applicant's intent to move the ground sign to the northeast corner of the property wh~re,itwill not be blocked by the rental trucko. Lastly, we would note that while a larger canopy sign is proposed to be allowed for'the dry clear-.rs or a future tenant in that space, the intent seems to be for that sign to remain. In regard to the proposal we would comment that it is probably desirable to limit the ground sign to the same size allowed generally in the district. The wall signs would be most attractive if they all had the same 36" height, although it would be an improvement to at least have the tops i.n a straight line. We would also suggest that the length of the wall signs for the pharmacy and cleaners ~e limited so as to not extend farther to the left or right than the edge windows above the canopy. While we are not suggesting that it be a condition of approval, it would also be aesthetically more attractive if the present canopy sign for the dry cleaners were replaced with one that had the same 36" height proposed for the other two signs.