Laserfiche WebLink
DORSEY 8c WHITNEY <br /> Mr. Thomas D. Burt May 25, 1993 <br /> Page 2 <br /> permit. If the sign has existed by reason of variance or by reason of nonconforming <br /> status under the ordinance, it is rather difficult to deal differently with what in effect <br /> is the same sign with different information on it, when there is no change in the <br /> size, location, etc. Technically, the Council might be able to deny a variance even <br /> though one was previously granted, on the theory that it is not bound by a prior <br /> Council's actions. On the other hand, it becomes rather difficult to make findings of <br /> fact sufficient to support the denial of a variance when there are previous findings <br /> of fact by the Council to the contrary. <br /> If a new permit were not required in such cases, this could save a considerable <br /> amount of administrative time for the staff, Planning Commission and Council. <br /> You could include under the list of signs requiring no permit in Section 1400.08, a <br /> provision such as the following: <br /> A business identification sign designed to replace an existing business <br /> identification sign which lawfully exists under this Code, so long as the new <br /> sign has the same dimensions and is in the same location as the existing sign, <br /> And is not a prohibited sign under Section 1400.07. <br /> If you have any further questions in this regard, please let me know. <br /> Very true yours, <br /> re <br /> WRS:gle William R. Soth <br /> Enclosures <br />