Or..... how to discover limitations (and/or issues) within an existing ordinance.
One per street frontage, looks Ok by many codes.
Shorter Streetview link.
The position is indeed vacant. Generally, the practice was to have an applicant submit a proposal (could be a napkin sketch) and the sign guy would offer comments. Clearly this one did not go through that process.
Yes, it complies with the ordinance. But it's really stu---I mean, misguided for a school of design to do this. Why not have one larger sign, which could be read from across the street, facing the corner? It would save the school some revenue, and look a lot better.
I should go shoot the other corners to see what happened there.
ETA: This was our art museum, and when that entity vacated, ownership eventually transferred to this school. A contractor was brought in to make some slight renovations to the exterior (and, I'm told, make it student-ready inside). The contractor also clear-cut the site; this and all the other significant trees were removed immediately.
Here's another Streetview look at the corner. The cross street is a one-way, as shown by the parked cars.
Last edited by Veloise; 21 Aug 2012 at 12:07 PM.
And that concludes staff’s presentation...
Why does the university have to follow the local planning regs? In AZ one politcal subdivision does not have to conform to another's except for public safety issues. I thought that was the case in most states or is this just another crazy Arizona way of doing things?
"You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it,..." -Bane
Shrugs.. I don't understand the hoopla.
The content contrarian
Here are the four corners.
"Hey Jim, do we really need a sign on this corner, after they've driven past the building?"
"You're right, Fred. Let's put two on this corner, and we won't have to worry about someone not being able to read it due to the lightpole."
Didn't there used to be a Calder in front of this building?
We hope for better things; it will arise from the ashes - Fr Gabriel Richard 1805
GR has a form-based code, and a flexible city staff willing to assist with design and layout ideas. Our local sign companies tend to follow a bull-nosed approach. "We need to install this digital reader board out front of this self-storage business, because in this economy..." as if a drive-by customer rents a storage unit on impulse. "Yes, the free-standing billboard previously at this site was removed by the then-owner, but we bought the lease from them so our attorney says that we're entitled to construct a new non-complying use here."
I can understand why someone from an edgey strip mall city would "have no problem" with the appearance afforded here. This ain't Novi.
Interesting article about the intent to “restore this landmark building to its finest hour.”
I've lived in four different countries and have done planning or related work in three of them. I've worked in both public and private sectors in Toronto, Chicago and now a large city in Texas. I can't help but bring a different viewpoint to the table. I do take issue with your last comment: just because someone may have "no problem" or little problem with the signs, that doesn't mean they're from "an edgey strip mall city."
The content contrarian
It gets really interesting for Cornell University, where some colleges and their facilities are private, while others are part of the state university system.
Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell. -- Edward Abbey
I used to tell people the sign had to be perpendicular to the road to be counted for road a or b. if the sign was angled to be readable from both streets it would count as a sign on each street. It may not meet your codes to do that, but it would make people push the signs apart.
I don't pretend to understand Brannigan's Law. I merely enforce it.