VN-157 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t •VN-157 -5- should not be debating the-sign ordinance, but should be discussing the variance appl%caton as pr_esQnted. Me. ~ailson indicated that they would appreciate approval if this vac-lance on the basis that a7.I s~.gns be made to conform as requ.fixed bar the possible sign amortization ordinance. Mrs `Eagon noted that the R. T '~ntilson, Co., has applied the vaclance and hasfoilowed all the proper steps prior to the erection, of ariy signs. This, Mrs, Eagan states], is quite commendable compared. to many others who have erected signs prior to any permits being received..'.. Councilman Hartt asked about the present status of the sign inventory, -The Citv Planner indicated that the sign inventory is approximately 85% complete. This figure includes just the photographing and measuring of signs, Councilman Hartt suggested that the Board of Review may want to consider some form of amortization condition in this request. ~rTickland indicated that he could not support the request in its present formo Motion by ~~ickland, sconded by Partyka.. to recommend denial of VN-157 because. 1. The request would increase the total numb?r of non--conformities; 2, There has been no attempt to reduce the existing non- conforming signs. Harty stated that he felt it may be better to make a positive ~, motion by recommending approval providing that the signing be made to conform. Mr. U~ilson stated that there were ttao distinct situations, one being the R. T. Wilson, Co. request.-and the second being the overall signing for the building.. Mr. Wilson indictated that they would just like signage equal to the other tenants fo the building and stated that the overall signing problem should be a separate issue. Partyka noted that a-tool, of the present sign ordinance is thatnon-conforming signs can~bebrought-into conformance in conjunction with a var~.ance requeste