VN-152 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Review.. -?- Dec. 16, 1975 It was agreed .that condition number-three would be discussed later in the .meeting. It was suggested that in regard to condition number four, that .the "pizza to go" and "color TV" information on each .wall sign for the corner bar would be taken off. In regard to condition number five, Mr. Rybak stated. that he sees nothing wrong with these window signs and stated that they can't be repainted because they are-not made `anymore. Mr. Nattel`noted that painting out parts of the windows gives privacy to the bar's patrons. Parham asked about the possibility of simply painting out the signs in the windows but leaving the windows painted. She explained that the 'purpose of the ordinance is to make signing more effective by reducing clutter.' She noted that many signs compete with each other reducing their effectiveness and in regard to the property in ques- tion, it probably isn't possible for the members of the Planning -~ Commission to .tell .them now what-signs ,actually exist because of this clutter effect and competition between signs, :Harty stated that he thought .the Planning Commission would want to leave condition number five in as a cone it ion of the variance approval. In regard to condition number six, Mr. Nattel stated that he is willing to move the ground sign back and repaint it to say "Eddie's Corner Bar Building and New Brighton Furniture Building - Customex - Parking... Parham noted that the. sign would still be too big. i~lr. Nattel stated that if he .could informed as to the allowed sign, •~ he would conform. Parham asked about the possibility. of a wall sign facing the parking lot. Fritz UTerdouschegg asked if such a sign would be allowed. ~ The Building and Planning Coordinatorstater''the sign would be allowed if there is parking on that side of the building for ten cars or moe.