03/10/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

representation of what the sign would look like and requested that'Mr1: Conway make the contractor conform to what was presented. Mr. Conway contended that the background is not part of the sign, and questioned if he should tell,people they cannot paint their buildings. The members suggested that only the area behind the letters should be regulated. In that case, Mr. Conway questioned if he should consider that background as part of the sign area, si.nce this would outline a laxger area, and the size might not conform to code. Mr. Tallon believed that the rectangular area that is used to compute the area should be considered as part of the sign. Mr. Dubelko stated that the codes are weak in the authority to control colors. He read a portion of the sign code and stated that it does give the Building Offieial some authority if the sign conflicts with the site. Mr. Dubelko and Mr. Conway will discuss this after the meeting. Mr. Gorris stated that he ha.s received a letter from Mr. Richland, who is representing- Summit Properties, regarding the April hearing scheduled for Butternut Ridge Apartments and requesting a special meeting due to the hardship of delaying the construction. Mr. Gorris stated that the hardship is self created, and the Commission heard them for 2 hours at the last meeting. Mr. Richland, who was present, responded that this may be self caused, but it was not intentional, and imder the present scheduie there could be no approval tmtil June which means the project might not be under roof before winter. He stated that this problem was created because the developer was tmfamiliar with the procedures. It was clarified the developer is asking for approval of architectural changes to the project which was previously approved. Mr. Tallon pointed out that these changes were disapproved previously and there was no legitimate reason to change the plans as approved originally. Mr. Richland stated that the building was never shown in prospective, only as an elevation. He ha.s a prospective which would show the true appearance of the building including the roof structure as it will appear. He maintained that the roof is so complex that the scale is destroyed by the detail, and that the roof should be a solid, unifying element. As an architect, he believed that simplicity is the essence of beauty. He asked if this could not be presented to the Architectural Board, because their opinions might make a difference. Mr. Morgan had no problem re-reviewing the proposal, but does ha.ve a problem with them putting the Commission in a ti.me frame. Mr. Dubelko stated that this has been denied by the Commission, and it would not be a good precedent to allow them to return, tmless they have something new to present. Mr. Richland reiterated he would show this in a new prospective and would be presenting the new proposal which he believed to be superior. Mr. Tallon pointed out that for months this developer had been telli.ng them that this was a tremendous architectural product and that this company builds all over the world. Mr. Richland advised that this is designed in such a way that roof vents must be installed which would be undesirable. There is no intent to cheapen the project. Mr. Gorris stated that there had been many meetings on this proposal, and if it comes back it would have to be at a regularly scheduled"meeting at which time the additional landscaping plan and the forester report as required previously must be presented. Mr. Bowen mentioned Mr. Dubelko's statement that developers would.continue to bring back plans after they had been disapproved. Chairman GorrYS called an executive session. When the meeting reconvened Chairman Gorris advised that it has been agreed that if the developer were presenting the same plans that were disapproved last month, the previous vote stands and they should not returne If they are presenting new plans, they may return at a regular meting. 9