06/09/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? was granted without adding the mansard, or that the members could vote on it now. Mr. Skoulis also was willing to compromise. Mr. Shepherd responded that if they are not allowed to make the building more modern or to improve the existing mansard of the building, they prabably would not be interested in locating in North 0]msted, but appreciated the effort to come to some sort of compromise. Mr. Gorris stated that the developer wants a vote on the plan as it is. J. Thomas moved to approve the proposal for exterior renovation for Habitat at 4687 Great Northern Boulevard, incorporating all the suggestions of the Architectural Review Board as well as the variance pronided by the B.Z.A., seconded by R. Bowen. Roll call on motion: Thomas, Bowen, Gc>rris, Orlowski, and Skoulis, no. Motion failed to pass. The developers were advised this proposal will go an to the City Council. Mr. Thomas asked tha.t the Council be advised that the reason why the motion was not approved was because of what the Commission felt was an inappropriate size for the mansard dominating in relation to the adjacent stores in the center. Mr. Solomon believed- that the record should also state that of the time that they had been here this evening, the discussion focused on the sign rather than on the architectural facade which the counsel had advised was inappropriate, there were no questions about Dri-vit or about the Architecture, the Commission focused completely on the signage. He believed that the vote was according to the Commission's bias against the signage. Mr. Orlowski wanted it entered into the record that all of the points which the developer brought out and the information that the Commission had from the Architectural Review Board had been considered by h-im before he made his decision; including the Dri-vit and their requirements for the brick ha.lf way up the colimms. Mr. Solomon stated maybe he had in his mind, but it was not stated_at the hearing. 2) Butternut Ridge Landscape Plan, 5618 to 5800 Great Northern Blvd. Revised landscape plan and sign proposal. Heard by Architectural Review Boaxd on Ma.p 20, 1992. Mr. Trevillian, developer, presented a revised plan showing the changes requested by the Archi.tectural Review Board (he has initialed these plans). Mr. Orlowski explained that, at the last meeting, he had referred the I-480 sign to the A.R.B. with the recommendation that the sign be limited to name recognition only (si.milar to that of Bridlewood Apartments) and further suggested that the size of the sign be limited to tha.t which is allowed in the commercial district, rather than a la,rger variance. The Arch.itectural Board had approved the signs in concept, but had referred the issue' of locating the sign on I-480 back to the Commission. Mr. Thomas asked if the developer was agreeable to these suggestions. Mr.. Trevillian resporided that he could accept a one year trial period for the sign. The color rendering which had been presented at the previous meeting was not in the file. Mr. Belknap, sign contractor, presented pictures showi.ng the- proposed location of the sign and various locations from which it could be seen. This will be behind the 5 foot chain li.nk fence and will be double the height of the fence. The 2 foot high base wiTl be a solid daxk brown, so the sign will be 12 foot high. Mr. Thomas had no problem if there is a one year limitation. Mr. Orlowski stated that the sign appears to be cluttered and he would still prefer name recognition only and doubted this could be read from the freeway. Mr. Trevillian would agree to the one yeax limitation with the provisions that if there were no objections, it eould rema.in. Mr. Thomas suggested a review after one year with consideration of the occupancy of the bui.lding and the possibility of a smaller sign after that time. Mr. Trevillian stated he had agreed to the one year since he doubted that there would be any objections, but pointed out that the sign was to be constructed to be permanent, but a temporary sign would be 3