Laserfiche WebLink
_ Page 2 <br />Minutes - Board of Review <br />September 21, 1976 <br />VN-160, Bermel-Smaby. Inc a <br />The City Planner r$vzewed his comments rooting that the vaa:ianc~ <br />was requested to permit the existing s~gn'td remain. <br />Mr. Gerald Carroll, Attorney for Bermel-Srnaby, was present to <br />answer questions. Mr. Carroll indicated that the sign was <br />originally erected ir. 1970, at a cost of approximately $5000,00. <br />Mr. Carroll fu~'ther ~.ndi,cated that any change to the sign would <br />require that .the entire frame be changed. <br />Harty questioned-..why the sign was erected without a permit when <br />Bermel --5rnaby had bee?i advised that a permit was necessary. <br />Mr. Carroll replied that; yes, the sign had been erected with- <br />out a permit. Mr. Carroll indicated that Bermel-Smaby felt an <br />urgency to replace the sign as:this was their stole identification <br />for their. business aid further that the sign, in a state of <br />disrepair,:caused by vandalism, seas very unattractive. <br />Marty questioned exactly what th` cost of the repair vase <br />Fredrickson arrived at 7.47 P.M. <br />Mr, Carroll replied. that the cost of repair for .the sign was <br />'approximately $700.00. <br />Wickland indicated that he could-.see recommending approval of <br />VM-160 with the provision that some form of amorization be <br />applied. <br />Motion by Wic:land, seconded by Bohliny, to recommend approval <br />of VN-160., with the condtonthat the sign be brought into <br />.conformity within five years. <br />Bohling,questioned whether the sign. could be brought into <br />conformance without changing the .sign. base. <br />Harty ndica~;ed that he did believe that the sign.couid be <br />repaired. withc~at. changing the base. <br />Councilman Harty noted that while he is somewhat uncorifortable <br />with the motion, this-may be the Iasi.:. opportunity to bring the <br />sign into conformance. Councilman HaLdt added that' Y~~e would <br />