Laserfiche WebLink
-~ <br />VN-150 _ -3- <br />As nearly as we have been able to determine, the. other non- <br />conformities regardingsigning are as follows:. ' <br />1. 5th Ave, side wall sign "Eddie's Corner. Bar" - covers <br />more thanorie signable area and exceeds the percentage of a <br />signable-area which may be covered with a sign. <br />2. Wall sign abovesideentrance door to furniture store <br />on 5th eve. side - the sign in this location does not face a <br />public street and so is not allowed. The parking loton-this <br />side of the building c?oes not contain at least l0 parking spaces..: . <br />3; Wa11 sign above entrance. door Eddie's Corner Bar - either <br />this sign or other signs would not be allowed becauseonlyone <br />wall sign is allowed per business. In addition, the signable area. <br />in this Iocation~is 14.25,square feet and the sign itself is <br />approximately .13.5-square .feet so that it exceeds the allowable <br />.percentage of tie signable area. <br />4. Wa11,.sign 10th St. side Ec~die's Corner Bar - this sign <br />would also be in violation of the ordinance as it exceeds the <br />boundaries of a signable area and almost totally covers the signable <br />area over which it is located thereby exceeding the allowable <br />percentage of the signable. area that can be covered. <br />5. Furniture store-sign loth St. side - this sign would be <br />conforming on its size. Only one wall sign is allowed, however;. so <br />that either this sign or the other wall sign is non-conforming for <br />. that reason.. <br />6. Projecting sign Eddies' Corner Bar - projecting signs are <br />no longer allowed under the new sign ordinance. " <br />7. All wall and permanent window signs on Eddies Corner <br />Bar -the amout of information contained on these signs exceeds <br />1 the 5 items of information per side allowed under the Code. - <br />Tn considering its recommendation on this variance, the <br />" Council will want to consider the question of whether the existing <br />signing is excessive and whether or not it should be"brought <br />into greater conformity with the ordnance before allowing the. <br />erection of new signs. Because only the tenant making the :request <br />and the owner of the property-are involved, it would seem possible <br />to reach some agreement regarding removal of some non-conform~.ng <br />signing. Some of the non-conforming signing that might be considered <br />