PL PACKET 07191988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 1 *stated that although he was usually "reall tough" , 2 when it came to signage he perceived they had made a good case for • 3 being allowed three rather than the two signs he City usually 4 allows a corner lot; 5 *concluded by saying he believed t t by squaring off 6 this building for two signs, the City would to a something. 7 *Wagner agreed that this * parcel with the NSP distribution 8 center behind it was unique and eeded three signs for 9 identification. 10 *Franzese questioned the ed for 3 signs, however she 11 said she liked the symmetry of 3 sign on the building; 12 *agreed that the, uniqu topography of the site and the 13 need for better traffic flow p ovided the justification for the 14 variances in this case.. 15 *Werenicz indicate he was pleased with the overall 16 -concept and believed by an ling the building the need had been 17 created for three signs ; 18 *perceived all ny driver approaching the facility from • 19 any one direction would s e would be only one sign; • 20 *thought th 7-1/2 square foot total size variance was 21 minimal after taking i to account that the signs are mass produced to 22 the same sizes . 23 *Madden agreed that angling the building necessitated 24 three signs. 25 *Land n thought this would be 'an attractive facility for 26 that unique c rner and that the variance requests were quite 27 reasonable; 28 * aid he was "very much in favor" of granting the 29 variances. 30 *Brownell echoed what the other Commissioners had said, 31 indicati g he perceived this would be an attractive use of a 32 difficu t corner; 33 *agreed that three signs were justified because of the 34 loca ion of the building and the traffic patterns. 35 W n he had ascertained that there were no persons present who 36 jected to the variances, the Chair closed the. hearing at 8: 50 P.M. • 37 or the following: • 7