VN-157 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_ VN-157 -~- a ~.'..~ the proposed signs do not con:~orrn to the code requirements for the bu ~ ld ing ,. The build~_ng in question is locater~ on'the northeast corner of ly~th St and Silver Lake Road, `and is owned by Mr. Rodney t~T. Billman. The building is one of mu3tiple occupancy having shared entrances. Tenants in he building include Luny! RFa.ltors, Cmith wstem Co., Law offices, Calhoun Realty Co.;, European Health.:Spa Inc< For purposes of signing such a building is governed by Section 1''-200 paragraph c of>the Zonging Code,;which states; "?, Buildings having multiple occupancy`t~ith shared Pnt~ancr~sa Such joint occupancy buildings may be i~?~ntfied by a single ground `or wall. sign in conformance ~a~ah sections 1~--040, 1`'120 and 14-13~ :except that such sign shall display the name of the build--±`ng only. IntPr?_or activites shall be identified together on an integrated wa l directory Such dPnti.fication shall. bP limited to one square foot per activity and such directory must. be placed v~~ithn a sgnable area" The'ex~st-ing wall signs are non-conforming because they: are not integrated ina ~~~all directory and because they ~xcA?d the one square foot per activity requirement. ThE ground sign is non- -. conforming because it exceeds the district height, area, and. items of information limitations, and because it does not strictly identify the-building.. We must also add that permits have never been issued for the vaa11-signs on the property The `applicant's desire is to erect one ?' x 12` wall sign above- `the existing ;"Smith System Co." sign, and two ~'~' ~~ 8' panels on either side of the existing. ground sign (see attached sketch of proposed signs). The apphicants have indicated that this- variance is requested because without those signs; 1) there caould be difficulty and hardship in their customers locating the company; 2) the public image of the R. T. InTilson Company would be impaired; and '~) with all ~che other signing on the property it c~~ould be unfair to restr~.ct thA signing of thF R. T, r^Tilson, Coo Our concerns for this request are threefolda a le [^ahether the proposed and existing signing is:n keeping with the intent and purpose of the ordinance in terms of un~.formity, sound identification, .aesthetic enhancement and reduction of clutter If this ~ti~erP a new building it .could bP identified by either a single ground or wall sign,