Laserfiche WebLink
i~IINUTL5 <br />PLr1NN.ING CONI~TISSION <br />MARCII 11, 2004 <br />of which have two building signs and one pylon. Anesi noted that these <br />five other businesses on Rice Street have the same number of signs that he <br />is requesting on behalf of Aldi hoods. <br />The City Planner indicated that he preswnes these sign permits were <br />issued in a manner consistent with the Code. He noted, however, that <br />white the Sign Ordinance allows for additional square footage of signage <br />allowed for buildings on corner lots, it does not allow for more than one <br />building sign and one pylon sign. <br />The Planner stated that if the Commission feels that three signs (two wall <br />signs and one pylon) are appropriate for Aldi Foods, then he would <br />recommend that the Sigu Ordinance be amended accordingly. The <br />Planner noted that there is no hardship present thaC would warrant the <br />granting o~f a Variance. <br />The Commission expressed concern about the examples presented by Mr. <br />Anesi showing other businesses on Rice Street with three signs. The <br />Plamler indicated that his guess would be that these sign permits were <br />issued in error. However, ClZis would not be a basis for granting a <br />Variance to Aldi Foods. The Planner again recommended if the <br />Commission is inclined to support the request, that the Sign Ordinance be <br />amended. <br />Rheaume indicated that he sees nothing negative about the signs in the <br />examples presented by Mr. Anesi, nor with the Aldi sign request. <br />Rheaume indicated that given the location of Balty's pylon sign, it would <br />be advantageous for Aldi Foods to have Che additional building sign they <br />are requesting. <br />buray asked if initially there was approval for three suns for Aldi Foods. <br />Anesi reported that the building elevations he presented showed the <br />signage, and there was uo indication that there was a problem with the <br />three signs. Anesi reponed Chat he only became aware that there was a <br />problem with the signage at the time the building was being constructed. <br />I{eis pointed out that there is no Hardship to justify ~rauting a Variance. <br />Deis felt that the Commission needed some additional time Co review the <br />Sign Ordinance and conclude whether or not an amendment should be <br />made to the Ordinance. Barraclough agreed, pointing out that the <br />Commission must consider the bigger picture and the impact that an <br />Ordinance amendment would have. <br />Keis also suggested that the City Council may want to provide input on <br />dte issue of ~-imendiug the Sign Ordinance. "hhe Planner pointed out that <br />-?- <br />