My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
VN-162
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Variance Files PLZ 02400
>
VN 101-200
>
VN-162
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2007 3:06:31 PM
Creation date
2/23/2007 11:56:27 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
VN-162 -3- Nov. 9, 1976 <br />The applicant's second proposal indicates an approximate <br />date for reducing the height of the sign. If the variance and sign <br />plan are approved, we would suggest that 'a definite date be <br />established for compliance. While the proposed height reduction <br />will eliminate one non-conforming aspect of the ground sign, it <br />would still appear that the area of the reduced sign would still <br />exceed ordinance requirements. As noted, the area of the ground <br />sign is presently 250 sq. ft. Reducing the height to 20 feet would <br />appear to reduce the sign area to approximately 130 sq. ft,. The <br />maximum sign area permitted in the B-2 District is 36 square feet. The <br />Council may want to consider incorporating regulations governing <br />the future sign area in any recommendation for the variance and <br />sign plan. <br />The applicant's third proposal indicates that the individual <br />tenant' panels on the ground sign will be of standard size with <br />uniform lettering and coloring. The size of the tenant panels are <br />shown#o be 20" x 8' with a four inch space separating each panel. <br />The applicant has not, however, indicated the number of items of <br />information that each tenant panel may display. <br />The 'fourth element of the proposed sign plan indicates <br />that after 5 years the tenant penels would be removed .and the <br />ground sign.would display only the address of the property. We <br />would note the ordinance regulations state that buildings such <br />as this may have a single ground or wall sign displaying the name <br />of, the building only. <br />if the Council were to recommend approval of the variance <br />request, we would suggest that therapproval be conditioned on-the- <br />applicant's applicant's sign plan plus any amendments or additions the Council <br />feels necessary. in terms of possible conditions, we would suggest <br />that regulations governing design standards, construction standards, <br />projection and clearance standards, and regulations relative to <br />window graphics be incorporated into the sign plan. In regard <br />to window signs, we would note that these have been extensively <br />used in this building and have contributed considerably to the <br />cluttered appearance of the building's signing. These signs <br />have become permanent and as such, contribute additional items <br />of information beyond that,allowed. They shoud, perhaps, be pro- <br />hibited. <br />Planning Commission Consideration-10-19-76: <br />The City Planner reviewed his report.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.