VN-152 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

w .... - z ; _ PUBLIC .HEARING -VN-15 January I3, 1976 8c30 P.M. Request. VN-152, Variance to allow erecting one wall sign on 5th 1ve.-Ntr7 reading "New Brighton Furniture, Inc" aobve windows .plus erecting one. wall sign on 10th St. NW~: side reacting "New Brighton Furniture,.-Inc." above windows and externally lighting the requested wall, signs. on-5th 1we. and lOth,St. and to allow repainting of existing ground sign ,as shown Qn the attached sheet- Applicant: Ed~aiard Rybak/New Brighton Furniture, Inc. Location: 948 5th Ave.. NW, (8h7 corner of 5th Ave. NW and 10th Street Nt^T .Discussion: The application is essentially the same as the one reviewed by the Council in November. Because of an error in the processing " of the application where the property_ owner, Edward Rybak,-did not sign-the application, the Council voided the. whole proceedings and Mr. Rybak-has. chosen to apply fox the variance as required by the Zoning Code. The. situation with regard to the non-confonmities~ in the signing on-the property remains as it was at the time of the previous variance application so that .rather than -reproduce this entire discussion, we have simply attached the discussion.. in regard to VN-150. Some additional discussion is necessary, however. One issue involved here,-which is not eXplicitly discussed is the question of whether repainting a sign in such a way as to change the wording or the-size of the 4iording should be considered a "modification" of .the sign as that term is used in Section 1~'•-?_.ZO If such repainting is a modification, then a permit is required and also a variance if ,there are non-conforming signs on the. premises. If such repainting is not a modification, then it would be a repair and would only require a permit if the cost exceeded $50. In the case in question, if repainting were not a modification, it might be possible for the furniture store to repaint its signs without need of a permit or a variance. We would also like to note that the Planning Commission recommendation on this application differed slightly from its - recommendation on VN-.150 and•from the Council's.,acton on VN-1.50. The differences are as fo1-lows: