VN-162 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-3_ Nov. 9, 1976 VN--162 The applicant's second proposal indicates an approximate date for reducing the height of the sign. If the variance and sign p;an are approved, we would suggest that 'a definite date be established for compliance. While the proposed height reduction will eliminate one non-conforming aspect of the ground sign, it would still appear that the area of the reduced sign would still exceed ordinance requirements. As noted, the area of the ground sign is presently 250 sq. ft. Reducing the height to ?0 feet would appear to reduce the sign area to .,approximately 130 sq. ft. The maximum sign area permitted in the B-2 Di L-rict is 36 'square feet. The Council may want to consider incorporating regulations governing the future sign area in any recommendation for the variance and sign plan. The applicant's third proposal indicates that the individual tenant panels on the ground sign will be of standard size with uniform lettering and coloring. The size of the tenant panels are shown`to be 20" x 8' with a four inch space separating' each panel. ,The applicant has not, however, indicated the number of items of information that each tenant panel may display. The fourth element of the proposed sign plan indicates that after 5 years the tenant panels would be removed and the ground sign would display only the address of the property. We would note the ordinance regulations state that buildings such as this may have a single ground or wall sign displaying the name of the building only. If the Council were to recommend.approval of the variance. request, we would suggest that the approval be conditioned on the applicant's sign plan plus any amendments or additions the Council feels necessary. In terms of possible conditions, we would suggest that regulations governing design standards, construction standards, projection and clearance standards, and regulations relative to window graphics be incorporated into the sign plan. In regard to window signs, we would note that these have been extensively used in this building and have contributed considerably to the cluttered appearance of the building's signing. These signs have become permanent and as such, contribute additional items. of information beyond that allowed. They shoud, perhaps, be pro hibited. Planning Commission Consideration 10-19-76: The City ;Planner reviewed his report.