VN-157 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

..?_ the proposed signs do not conform-to the-code requirements for the building The building in question is located on the northeast corner of 1~'-th St~ and Silver Lake Road, and is owned by Mr..'Rodney Wa Sillman~" The building i one of multiple occupancy having shared entrances. Tenants in the building. include Lund Realtors, wraith System 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 Zongang Code, wrich states "2. Buildings having multiple. occupancy ~~ith shared entrances: Such joint occupancy buildings may be i~?entifz ec~ by a single ground or wall sign an conformance with Sections 1^-0~0, 1 -120-and 1=-1~0 except .that such sign shall display the name of the building only Interior activates shall be identified together on an integrated wall directory Such identification shall be limited to'one square foot per activity and such directory must be placed within a signable area." The existing wall signs are non-conforming because they are not integrated in a wall directory anc? because-they excepc? 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 wall signs on the property The applicant's desire is to erect one 3` x 12~ wall sign above the existing "Smith System Co." sign, and two !'~' x 8' panels on either side of the existing groun~? sign (see attached sketch of proposed signs).. The applicants have indicated that-this variance is requested because w~_thout these signs; 1) there would be difficulty. and hardship in their customers locating the company; 2) the public image of the R. T: T~7alson Company would be ~impairPd; and ?) with-all the other signing on the property it would be unfair to restrict the signing of the R. T. ~~?ilson, Co. Our concerns for this request are threefolda 1. t~lhether the proposed and existing signing is in keeping with the intent and purpose of the ordinance an terms of uniformity, sound identification, aesthetic enhancement and reduction of clutter If this were a new building it could be identified by either a single ground or'iaall sign,