My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
VN-152
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Variance Files PLZ 02400
>
VN 101-200
>
VN-152
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2007 5:14:00 PM
Creation date
2/22/2007 3:34:30 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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
~, >, <br />•~ <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />VN--15 7_.. <br />- January 13, 1976 <br />8.3D P.t~f. <br />Reausst: VN-152, Variance to allow erecting one wall sign on <br />5th %?ve. Ntn1 reading "New. Brighton. Furniture, Inc" <br />aobve windows plus erecting one wall sign on 10th St`. NW~: <br />side read-ing "New`Brighton Furniture, Inc<" above <br />windows and externally lighting the requested wall signs <br />on 5th Avee and 10th St. and to allow repainting of <br />). - <br />' existngground sign as shown on the attached sheet <br />Apglieant-: Edti~~ard Rybak/New Brighton ::Furniture, Inc. <br />- ~Loc'ation :: 948 5th Ave. NW (SU7 'corner of 5th eve . NW ana 10th <br />Street Nt^~ <br />Discussion• <br />-.The application is essentially the same as the one reviewed <br />by: the Council in November. .Because of an error in the processing <br />of the application where ,the property. owner, Edward Rybak, did <br />-not sign the application,. the Council voided the whole-proceedings <br />and;~+ir. Rybak has chosen to apply for the variance as requiree? by <br />the Zoning Code. The situation. with regard to the non-conformities <br />in the signing on the property remains as it was at the time of <br />the previous variance application so that rather than reproduce <br />this entire discussion, we have simply attached the discussion <br />in regard to~VN-150. Some additional discussion is necessary, <br />howPVer. <br />One issue involved here which is not explicitly discussed <br />is the question of whether repainting a sign in such a way as to <br />change the wording or the size of the wording should be eonsic~e.rec~ <br />a "mo.dificatinn" of the sign as that term is used in Section 1~'•-?_.10 <br />If such repainting. is a modification, then a permit is required <br />_ and also a variance if there are non-conforming signs on the <br />premises. If such repainting is not a modification, then it <br />would be a repair and would only require a permit if the. cost <br />exceeded $50. In the case in question, if repainting were. not.. <br />a modification, it might be possible for the furniture store to <br />.repaint its signs without need of a permit or a variance. <br />We would also like to note that the Planning Commission <br />recommendation on-this application differed slightly from its <br />' recommendation on-VN-150 and from the Council's action on VN-150.' <br />The: differences are as foilowss <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.