Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />- • _ <br />VN-1.5 7 -'3 - <br />displaying the nams of the building only, Aground sign, <br />if erPctec?, could not exceed 20 feet in height nor 36 square <br />feet in area, ?~ vaall .sign, if erected, could not Pxeed <br />~~J% of the selected signable area.. Interior activities <br />could be identified together on an integrated wall directory, <br />with identification limiter? one square .foot per. activity< <br />.This wall directory must. be place~?`within a signab a area.,. <br />2, [nThether the warrants are present and justify the variance <br />Section 1?~-220 indicates that the necessary elements in <br />relation to sign variances are: <br />1 Practical difficulties <br />2., Unnecessary hardships <br />'=. Results inconsistent with the general purpose of <br />Chapter 3~IV <br />In addition, it is stated that: ' <br />1~ Special circumstances ?nvolving size, shape and <br />topography, or location must be attached to the <br />property. <br />2, The granting of the variance sha1.1._ not constitute, <br />special privilege, <br />3~ What the consequences may be should additional tenants <br />move into the building who also dAsire signing. snihile the. <br />applicants have indicated that the building is now fully <br />occupied, we would just acid that any modification to existing <br />signs, such as changing panels on the goound sign, would <br />require variances if there are non-conforming signs on the <br />property:: our concern is for the Councils position on <br />future sign requests following action on this immediate <br />request. <br />Planning Commission Consideration (May 18, 1976): <br />The City Planner reviewed-his comments noting that this was <br />a building of multiple occupany having shared entrances. <br />Mr, & Mrs, [~7ilson, of the R. T, t~?ilson, Co. , and Diana Eagon, <br />attorney for the applicants, were present to answer questions, <br />Mrs. Eagon noted that the- bu-ilding in question has three distinct <br />