Laserfiche WebLink
t <br />'viv-157 -6- <br />Mrs< Eagon also indicated that the overall signing. for the <br />building is a..separate issue and further stated that she ~aoulc~ not <br />like to see the R, _T. ~r?ilson Co, Pena .ized for the non-conforming <br />signs of the other tenants, <br />Mr. Wilson stated that they have. a business to run, that their <br />public image has been hurt, and that customers have had trouble finding` <br />their location Mr, Wilson further: noted that they have triers to <br />follow the legal procedures and that they would like to see a solution <br />to the problem. <br />Votion on motion - 2 ayesQ 3.~ayes -- motion failed, <br />Councilman Hardt suggested. that the Planning Commission may <br />want to consider recommending approval with a condition that the <br />,igns bP made to conform within a given period of timed <br />TnTickland asked the applicant which of the proposed signs: are <br />the most..important to him. <br />Mr. Wilson stated that all of. the signs. are of equal importance <br />for identification and are needed given all of the other signs on <br />the property <br />~nlickland stated that it does not make sencP to perpetuate <br />the non-conformities, <br />Motion by Fredrickson, seconded by Wickland, to recommend <br />.approval of VN-157 with the following conditions <br />1. That all wall signs be brought into. conformance within <br />six (6) monthsa <br />2~ That the ground sign be brought into conformance within. <br />two (2) years, <br />5 ayes, ~ Hayes -motion carried. <br />