My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
VN-142
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Variance Files PLZ 02400
>
VN 101-200
>
VN-142
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2007 5:23:09 PM
Creation date
2/22/2007 2:29:26 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
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
'VP~~142 , _ -?- August 12, 1~?5 <br />Theexistingbillboard meets the height limitation but at <br />approximately .672square feet, is well in excess of the area <br />limitation. <br />~n summary, the. existing building ,signing and existing <br />billboard are not in conformance with the present ordinance. The <br />proposed billboard would conform to the existing ordinance by <br />itself provided that the temporary 4' x 8' sign were not added: <br />Section 1~-230 (c) of the ordinance states that no sign permits <br />may be,,issued'to properties with non-conforming signing except <br />by means of the variance. <br />Planningr Commission Consideration (July 15, 1A75): <br />The Building and Planning Coordinator reviewed the background <br />discussion. He showed photos of-the existing signs on the property.. <br />Mr„ Lee Kuluvar of .Cricket Inn was present to answer questions <br />regarding the request. Mr. Kuluvar reviewed the history of the <br />request and noted that the property owner, Mr. Griffis, will require <br />the existing billboard sign to be brought into conformity with the <br />City ordinance within one year and is willing to repaint the building <br />and-paint out the signs on the building within a five year period. <br />Chairman Parham asked why the one year figure was chosen for <br />the billboard. <br />Mr. Kuluvar stated that. he did not know specifically and would <br />suppose that a lesser time such as six months would be possible. <br />Chairman Parham stated that she sees a_special privilege in allo~~i <br />..additional income producing signs in addition to the ones o~~ the <br />property to be erected, She stated that she would want to see the <br />billboard sign removed sooner than one year.. She also noted that <br />the applicant hadn't spoken to the points of partical difficulty <br />or unnecessary hardship in complying with the ordinance. <br />Fredrickson suggested that three months would be a more appropriai:= <br />period within which to bring the existing billboard into compliance. <br />Mr. Kuluvar stated that the time allowed for removal of the <br />non-conforming ,building signs was of importance, and that it would b~ <br />unreasonable to have. to repaint the whore building within a short <br />period of time. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.