VN-160 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Proceedings Oct. 12, 1976 Councilman Werdouschegg asked what the area was of ' the logo beneath the main panel and the .open space of the sign below the main panel. The Planner resp.:>uae~3 the logo area was approximately 8 square feet and the c~~,ei- erica was dYYrc~.cimately 12 square feet or a total area of approximately 20 square feet. Gerald Carroll, attorney for Bermel-Smaby, stated that the variance was requested based on the upper panel being vandalized. Councilman Werdouschegg asked what the original value of the sign was. The Planner stated that tree building permit indicated that the original sign was approximately $3,000. Councilman Werdouschegg asked why the applicant insisted on maintaining a nonconforming sign. t Carroll responded that the main reason was the va]~iP of the sign. He noted that the sign was not objectionable to the neighborhood. Councilman Werdouschegg asked if the sign had been damaged previously. Carroll indicated that it had been damaged once previously. Motion by Hardt, seconded by Fisher to close hearing, 5 ayes - 0 nayes- carried Motion by Senden, seconded by Hardt to approve VN-160 to allow the Bermel-Smaby sign as repaired subject to the condition that the sign be brought into conformity within 5 years Motion by Werdouschegg, seconded by Fisher to amend the motion by adding an addit~.onal condition that should in the 5-year period other similar repair be required that the sign be brought into compliance Roll Call. Vote: Werdouschegg Aye Bromander Naye Senden Naye Fisher Naye Hardt Naye Motion failed Motion by Werdouschegg to additional condition that the future without permit and no future variances s] a Motion died for lark of a amend main motion by adding an should the sign be repaired in the variance shall terminate Nall be granted. second. ~. 2 Close Hearing