SP-075 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

c Board of Review Bohling noted that the option is to grant the special use permit for this particular sign or have a sign plan developed. Mr. Clark stated that with the possible downtown renewal, it may be redundant to draw up a sign plan for his building since it is likely that all new sign plans would be developed for the renewal project. partyka stated that he felt there were too many signs on the building and that he would like to see a sign plan developed. Councilman Hardt asked who owned the building and also who is responsible for signing on a building. Councilman Hardt felt that whoever owned the building would be responsible for or should be involved in any sign plan. Mr. Clark stated that the building is owned by the Clark Trust, and that his grandmother is the executor of the Trust. Harty stated that the sign plan must start someplace and suggested that Mr. Clark develop a sign plan to lessen non-conformities in the present signing. Partyka indicated that an element of the sign plan may be lowering the existing "Clark Pharmacy" to the size of the "Brighton Cleaners" also on the canopy. Partyka further suggested that perhaps all of the business signs on the building could be placed on the canopy at the same size as the "Brighton Cleaners" sign. partyka also noted that he had some concerns for the existing non-conforming gr~und sign. The Building and Planning Coordinator suggested that if the approach suggested by Mr. Partyka were followed, consideration should be given to requiring signing for the northernmost business to be a wall sign at the same height and of the same vertical dimension as the canopy signs. Mr. Clark stated that the ground sign was important because his building has a large setback and the sign is needed for identifi- cation purposes. Mr. Clark further estimated that it would cost $3500 to erect a new pylon ground sign. He felt that this cost was not worth it if the trucks to the south will remain to block the view.