01/08/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

their proposed sign is substantially sinaller. Governmental services would not be affected however the business itself would be affected if the sign is not visible to potential customers. They do not believe that their request is substantial. Mrs. Diver asked if there was glass bloclc around the sign. Mr. Kerr said the sign is encased by clear story glass. Ms. Rudolph questioned what was different from what was first presented to the board. Mr. Kerr said more detail was provided regarding distance from street, visual plans showing the comparison to what is allowed, aslced for and existing signs throughout the site. Mr. O'Malley reviewed the board's rules which regulates reconsideration and advised that as long as the request for reconsideration was received prior to the case being finalized the board has more flexibility when reviewing reconsideration of a case. Typically if reconsideration is granted an applicant is re-doclceted and legal notice is given but in this case legal notice was given for both the reconsideration and variance if granted reconsideration therefore both can be addressed. Ms. Rudolph said she did not object to the reconsideration and Mrs. Sergi voiced that she did not object but wanted more information i.e. a plan showing the actual sign allowed, pictures showing existing signage throughout the site including sizes. However she did not feel the board should address the variance until their Febniary meeting. Ms. Rudolph felt that since notices were given and the applicants could provide the information being requested the variance should be addressed. Mrs. Diver said that she objected to addressing the matter but did not object to the reconsideration. Mr. Menser said reconsideration should be granted and the variance addressed as explained by the law department the board could move forward to conclude the case. Mrs. Bellido felt there was no reason not to address the variance if reconsideration was granted. 1VIr. Menser moved, seconded by 1VIs. Rudolph, to grant Aldi's of 4694 Great Northern Blvd their request for reconsideration of 12/04/09 BZA sign variance denial pertaining to proposed wall sign which was unanimously approved 5-0. Mrs. Diver said she felt that the case should be re-docketed so additional information could be submitted. Ms. Rudolph said she did not think it was necessary to have the applicant return as she does not need to see additional evidence as it appears to be an appropriate variance and proper notice was issued. The sign is smaller than code allows, the setbaclc from the street is significant. Mr. Menser said the sign is significantly smaller than what is allowed by code and he does not feel it should be postponed to another night. Ms. Rudolph aslced if Mr. Kerr had a plan showing all the signs within the plaza and Mr. Kerr provided such a plan to show the board. Mrs. Sergi aslced if the plans showing the neighboring signs included dimensions. Mr. Kerr said he only had a visual plan which did not include dimensions. Mrs. Diver questioned what variances were granted to other signage within the plaza. The clerlc accessed prior minutes and reviewed the variances granted to HHGregg and Value City Furniture. 1VIs. Rudolph moved seconded by 1VIrs. Sergi to addi-ess the Aldi's reconsideration which was unanimously appa-oved 5-0. Mr. Kerr aslced if the board wanted all the facts represented or to just answer questions the board inay have. Mrs. Sergi asked if there would be any additional signage sought for the building as it was not clear the first time the variances were addressed. Mr. Kerr said if the proposed sign was granted they would seelc no further signage for the Aldi building. Mr. O'Malley said the board could not limit the applicant from having a second wall sign if code allowed, but they could stipulate no fiu-ther variances pertaining to signage would be allowed. Mrs. Diver said that the request would be limited to not seelcing any additional variances for signage. 5