The meeting’s focal point was the application for a variance on Aldrich Avenue South. The proposal aimed to increase the maximum allowable size of a projecting sign from 20 square feet to 31.9 square feet. The property, situated within a CM3 community mixed-use district, is a six-story multifamily building that spans two lots, constructed in 2008. The variance request was specifically for a sign to be placed at the corner of Lake Street and Aldrich Avenue South. City Planner Fatimat Olukoga presented the case, noting that the existing building and site did not present any unique circumstances that would justify the variance. The staff found that alternative solutions, such as wall signage or a smaller projecting sign, could comply with current ordinances, thus recommending denial of the variance.

The discussion revealed that the building’s significant height did not constitute a practical difficulty justifying a larger sign. Board members expressed concern about the illumination of the proposed sign, particularly its potential impact on bird safety at night due to the use of non-bird-safe materials. Despite these concerns, a representative for the applicant, who identified themselves as Trevor, the project manager for SDDI Signs, argued that the increased sign size was necessary to improve visibility for the property, which is currently 80% occupied and has several vacant units. Trevor highlighted the high traffic volume in the area, estimating between 18,000 to 22,000 cars daily, and emphasized that the current sign size put the property at a disadvantage compared to others in the vicinity. He stated the increased sign size would enhance wayfinding and public safety, aligning with the CM3 zoning district’s goals.

Following Trevor’s presentation, no further public comments were made in support of the application, leading to the closure of the public hearing. Board members engaged in a discussion about the sign size restrictions within the CM3 district, noting the allowance for larger signs in other districts, such as CM4. Some members expressed skepticism about the need for the variance, arguing that the sign’s proposed size did not enhance visibility over a smaller, compliant sign. Ultimately, the board voted six to none in favor of denying the variance, concluding that the property did not present unique circumstances warranting such an adjustment. The Chair acknowledged the applicant’s effort and participation.

Attention then shifted to another variance request on Blaisdell Avenue South, where the applicant sought to increase the fence height from four feet to six feet in the front yard. The property’s location in a UN2 neighborhood zoning district, combined with its status as a reverse corner lot and its substandard size, were cited as unique factors justifying the request. The staff explained that these conditions were not created by the applicant and recommended approval of the variance. Board discussion focused on the implications of the reverse corner lot designation and whether this constituted a unique condition. Despite some board members questioning the uniqueness of the lot, others supported the variance, citing the proposed fence’s benefits for property security without obstructing visibility. A motion to approve the variance was passed with four votes in favor and two against.

The meeting concluded with updates on appeals made to the Business, Inspections, and Zoning (BIZ) Committee. Two previous variances had been appealed, resulting in one denial being upheld and one front yard setback variance for turf installation being granted. Following these updates, the meeting was adjourned.