12/04/2008 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would not be legible if it was any smaller. Mrs. Sergi and Mrs. Diver felt that asking to have the logo ineet city height restrictions was reasonable. Ms. Rudolph felt that as the sign was only 30 square feet and more than 200 feet from the right of way a 2 foot variance was not substantial due to the fact the applicants are allowed 100 square feet by code. Mrs. Bellido felt if the Aldi sign was any smaller it would not be visible. Mrs. Diver aslced if the sign would be illuminated. Mr. Kerr said the sign is internally illuminated. Mr. Mitchell said that the building department counted all existing parlcing spaces and agrees with sheet SP-8 dated received November 25, 2008. The applicant is 44 parlcing spaces short for the entire site. The percentage of lot coverage is due to the larger size building. The applicant did a good job designing the aesthetics of the building and matching the building materials cui-rently used within the plaza. The variance for the wall sign is not significant as the letters are only 12 to 14 inches high and the sign itself is used as a window panel. They do not object to the request as it is significantly smaller than 100 square feet allowed by code. The parlcing issue is an existing condition on the site. A brief discussion ensued related to existing, landbanked and non-striped parlcing on the site. All board members agreed with the Assistant Building Commissioner that the non-striped parlcing spaces shown on sheet SP-8 should be striped as a condition of approval. Mr. Glazer said that the rear spaces would be striped following SP-8. Ms. Rudolph felt exceeding allowable lot coverage by 3% was not significant nor would it change the character of the area as it unifies the buildings throughout the site. The variance for 44 parlcing spaces is less than 5% of what is required for the entire site, the new building will enhance the site and the parlcing lot has never had parlcing space availability issues. Mrs. Bellido said the Aldi building would unify the site aesthetically and there was no way to achieve the required parking count short of not replacing the existing building once demoed. Mrs. Sergi agreed there was no way to accommodate the required parlcing but was concerned abandoned carts would become an issue. She appreciates the fact that the wall sign is less than 100 square feet but felt there was no reason why the sign exceeded the 4 foot height restriction. Although the majority of the signs on the site are excessively large, that is not a reason to exceed code requireinents. Mrs. Diver said loolcing at the variances individually they are not substantial however loolcing at them combined they are substantial. She objects to the size of the sign although it will not adversely affect governmental services and the tenant does not necessarily have lcnowledge of the zoning laws that is up to the property owners. The owner's predicament pertaining to the building and parking can not be changed however the sign can meet code. Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by 1VIrs. Bellido, to grant Aldi of 4694 Great Northern Blvd a variance for 44 off street paa-king and loading spaces; code requires 957 @ 5 per 1,000 sq ft, applicant shows 913, section 1161.05, contingent upon striping the rear 87 parking spaces whieh was unanimously approved 4-0. Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mrs. Bellido, to grant Aldi of 4694 Great Northern Blvd a variance for exceeding allowable lot coverage; code permits 25%, applicant shows 28%, section 1139.05, contingent upon striping the rear 87 parking spaces which was uuanimously approved 4-0.