My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
VN-131
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Variance Files PLZ 02400
>
VN 101-200
>
VN-131
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2007 11:58:58 AM
Creation date
2/21/2007 3:34:50 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PUBLIC HEARING <br />VN=131 <br />September 11, 1974 - 8:25 P.M. <br />Applicants U.O.P, Johnson <br />Location: 1950 Old Highway 8 <br />Request: Variance from Section 14-050 (b) to allow a sign with <br />a 15' front yard setback rather than the required 40' <br />Discussion: <br />The requested sign is a 15' tall, 6'1" wide double face ground. <br />sign. It is a design which the corporation uses at all its branch <br />locations. <br />As noted, the sign would have a-15' setback and be behind the <br />existing fence. The proposed building expansion will come to the <br />setback line and for this reason, a ground sign could only meet the <br />setback requirement if it were `placed along side the :expanded <br />building. The applicant feels that neither this arrangement, nor <br />a°wall sign, would have sufficient visibility. <br />The applicant's property line is 70' from the centerline of <br />Old Highway 8, meaning that the sign, as proposed, would be <br />set back 85' from the center of the road. <br />It should also be noted that there seems to be no reason why <br />the sign, could not be set back more than 15', though less than 40'. <br />The 15' dimension was chosen because it relates to the setback <br />requirement of one-third the building setback requirement which is <br />contained in the proposed sign ordinance the Council is considering <br />this evening. <br />Planning Commission Consideration (8/20/74): <br />There being no objection, the agenda order was revised to <br />consider this item at this time. <br />The Chairman read the background discussion. <br />Mr. A1.Otte was present presenting the applicant. He stated <br />that the proposed sign is corporate design used at all their plants <br />and that it is intended to be seen by approaching traffic before <br />it is abreast of the building. He explained that the sign is <br />illuminated because there are trucks coming into the premises at <br />night He '.also noted that the sign would be located behind the <br />fence.'
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.