05/12/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning Appeals was contingent upon approval by the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board. This center portion will be 62 feet higher than the Pxlsting mansard. Mr. Tallon questioned how this would be supported and was concerned about the view from the rear. Building Commissioner Conway advised that the type of support would have to be determined after the roof has been opened up, and the fascia was detailed to be encapsulated in Dri-vit. From the brochure that was presented, Mr. Thomas noted that the other stores had the letters straight across and believed this could be done here. The members are concerned about the appearance of the renovation. Mr. Shepherd explained that the fascia was about half of the total frontage, and was centered; their frontage is 80 feet and he assLUnes there is about 40 to 50 feet on either side. This will be their regional headquarter with four more stores planned in the area. The rear loading area is used mainly by installers, an employee would take merchandise out to a customer's car. Building Commissioner Conway explained the variance for the signs, there is a 75 foot limitation on all wall signs and there is also a variance based on the frontage of the entire unit. Mr. Thomas questioned why the B.Z.A. granted this variance, but again it was noted that the variance was based on approval of the Conmi.ssion and A.R.B. Mr. Conway advised that the variance was granted, but he asked for the stipulation that the proposal must go to the other Boards to determine if it would be compatible with the entire building. The members agreed that they needed to see a store front rendering and elevation including the two contiguous store fronts with their signs to show the relationship. Mr. Shepherd stated that he did not know that this was required, pointing out that holding up the proposal will cause a hardship for the people whom they ha,ve hirede There were no residents present. It was decided that the rendering could be presented to the Architectural Review Board and then be retu.rned to the Commission. The approval procedure was explained to Mr. Shepherd and he was advised that final approval would probably nat be until the end of June at the earliest. He was concerned that the owner might have to withdraw the proposal, and since they usua.lly build individual stores, they were unaware that it would take so long to get approval of a renovation. He was advised to take samples of all materials to be used including the sign to the Architectural Board. J. Thomas moved to forward the proposal for Habitat at 4687 Great Northern Boulevard, to the Architectural Review Board with the suggestion that the developer present to the A.R.B. a full scale color rendering of the building which Habitat is planning on renovating as well as the two contiguous stores and their relative sizes and the relative size of their signs, the colors they intend to use and the length of frontage in relation to the others. The Commission would also ask the A.R.B. to pay special attention to the height of the mansard to determine whether or not the height is in keeping with the total development; whether or not it eonforms to what the A.R.B. had recommended in the past; that the A.R.B. pay special attention to the size of the lettering in comparison to the signs on the contiguous stores and the other stores in the development: and pay particular attention to the material that is to be used in place of the alumirnnn and advise if it is compatible with the other store fronts; and further to look at the rear and side view of the building to see what this will look like from the rear, seconded by L. Orlowski, and Unanimously approved. 2) Butternut Ridge Landscape Plan, 5618 to 5800 Great Northern Blvd. Revised landscape plan as requested by Planning Commission on February 11, 1992 and proposal for signs. Building Commissioner Conway reminded the Board that previously the developer presented a billboard-, sign facing I-480 which was disapproved. They are now presenting a completed sign package including the entrance signs which were approved conceptually and a ground sign facing I-480. Mr. Trevillian, Stumnit 2