Laserfiche WebLink
the western facade. This site is particularly unique in that street frontage exists on three <br />of the four sides. <br />Howard inquired why a raceway sign was selected and not individually lit letters that <br />were required at Brighton Village. Gundlach replied that the code does not regulate the <br />type of signs used and Brighton Village, not the City, placed the individually lit letter <br />restriction on themselves. <br />Tim Jackson, Welch Companies Property Manager stated it was decided to place a <br />raceway sign versus individual letters since it would have less penetration into the <br />building. O'Brien inquired to why the sign is being placed on the south side, which faces <br />a residential neighborhood, rather than on the north side, which faces the freeway. <br />Jackson replied that the tenant feels that is the best location for their identification. <br />Motion by Zisla, second by O'Keefe to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. <br />7 ayes, 0 nays. MOTION APPROVED. <br />Motion by O'Keefe, second by Danger to ADOPT THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION <br />APPROVING THE REQUEST AS SUBMITTED. <br />7 ayes, 0 nays. MOTION APPROVED. <br />0 Commissioner Zisla rescued himself for the, following Public Hearing. <br />Public Hearing: LP2008-007, NC2008-005 Site Plan and Nonconforming Use Permit <br />Allowing for Construction of a 1,920 SF Addition to the Existing Office Building at 778 <br />1st ST NW <br />The applicant is requesting a Site Plan and Nonconforming Use Permit to allow <br />construction of a 1,920 square foot addition to the existing office building located at 778 <br />1st Street NW. Included in the proposed improvement is a slight modification to the <br />existing surface parking area where three parking stalls will be removed and an additional <br />8 parking spaces would be added. None of the outdoor storage yards, access points, or <br />other structures are impacted with this proposal. The applicant proposes to remove two <br />trees and implement landscaping to mirror the existing landscape adjacent to the existing <br />office building. <br />O'Brien stated that wood should be considered an appropriate material to be used as a <br />facade material. Several Commissioners agreed that wood should be considered in this <br />case. <br />Norm Wells, Architect, reported that the applicant would like to extend the addition an <br />additional ten feet on the proposed plan. Gundlach stated that change would not meet a <br />forty foot setback and could not support the revised site plan, adding that it would need a <br />variance. She added that it could be extended out on the side or back yard. Wells stated <br />