PL MINUTES 11171987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' 1 Signage Still Too Excessive for City Sign Ordinance 2 Further discussions with Michael Farrell, the new owner of the res- 3 taurant, and Mr. Gow indicated they wanted to keep all three signs, 4 including the ,64 square foot roof sign and the 32 square foot reader 5 board on the east side of the building. 6 As he had stated in his November 13th memorandum to the Commissioners, 7 Mr. Childs reiterated that the sign ordinance only allowed one sign 8 per building with perhaps, a variance for a second sign for a corner 9 building, but the total sign surface area must not exceed what would 10 be allowed for one sign, which in this case would be two square feet of 11 signage per foot of frontage or approximately 100 square feet. 12 The Manager reported staff had received no calls either for or against 13 the proposal and would therefore recommend the restaurant be allowed to 14 have two signs with total sign surface to meet the sign ordinance 15 allowance or whatever the Commissioners decide on after hearing from 16 the applicants regarding the hardships, etc. which might be involved in 17 this particular request. 18 His recommendation prompted the following discussions: 19 Gow: defended the request for three signs, saying the restau- 20rant is located between two heavily travelled roadways 01 where identification from both sides is essential; 22 indicated it had been his understanding that the entrance 23 sign he had proposed had been approved for that area; 24 reported a single sided sign would be replacing the double 25 sided neon sign currently on top of the building; 26 when Commissioner Werenicz pointed out the discrepancy 27 between the drawings for a 64 square foot sign he had dis- 28 tributed that evening and his October 30th application 29 letter which called for 27 feet of sign surface on one 30 side of the renovated roof sign, responded by saying he 31 had "different documents to reference that evening" . 32 Childs: insisted he had never personally approved 200 square feet 33 of sign surface for the entrance side; 34 Franzese: asked Mr. Gow *why, if the previous restaurant had done so 35 poorly with the current large roof sign, he thought retain- 36 ing that sign was essential to the restaurant' s success. 37 Gow: said his analysis of past businesses in that location had 38 to some degree attributed their failure to succeed to the 39 lack of identification which Mr. Farrell was attempting to �40 overcome with the proposed signage; 3