08/06/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

code sets the purpose of the general business district which is to meet the shopping and service needs of the city's residents. However this site is a regional mall which serves not only the local residents but the surrounding shopping area as well. In determining whether or not the spirit of the code would be upheld granting the variances, consideration is needed due to the mall's regional uniqueness which is not controlled by one owner as multiple owners are involved. Due to the orientation and linear distance from the multiple accesses there are clearly unique circumstances which justify granting variances. Westfield has owned the mall for 7 years as well as other regional malls and their experience and research has shown that their buildings need name recognition on the exterior walls to identify the tenants within the building. Chapter 1123.12 (1) reviews practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, which is inherent in and is particular to the mall because of its physical size, shape and characteristics. The city's zoning codes were designed for a standard size lot with a single tenant. The variances requested are not substantial nor does it set a precedent allowing-signs above the roofline due to its uniqueness. Mr. Mitchell said chapter 1163.25 relates to maximum sign face area for building and lot. Four of the variances requested relate to requests 14, 16, 17 & 18. Calculating maximum sign face per lot along Country Club Blvd applicants are over by 1596 sq ft. Calculating maximum sign face per lot along Brookparlc Road no variances are required as they are 320 sq ft below what code allows. Square footage allowed per building frontage for Country Club Blvd was calculated using Westfield's east and west property lines as boundaries excluding Sears and JC Penny's lots and accounts for the variance of 3827 square foot. The applicant's building has very little frontage along Country Club Blvd which accounts for four of the variances requested. The remaining variances are governed by chapter 1163.28 which regulates maximum square footage and height of signs. He reviewed the number and sizes of variances which had been granted to mall tenants since the year 2000. The standard sizes and requirements of the code do not fit the practical application within the mall however a 16 foot high sign is beyond a reasonable compromise and he opposes wall signs being mounted atop the roof. He noted that Retails A signs 4 and 6 were squared off to calculate total height and square footage and noted that letters within the boxes would be significantly smaller if stacked. Ms. Wenger noted a memo addressing her recommendations was previously submitted and said Westfield has worked as a partner with city to determine what is appropriate and there have been items of agreement as well as items which staff doesn't believe is appropriate. PDC worked out a compromise to move sign 6 into the new Westfield (east) entrance which was a good compromise. It is a reasonable request for an anchor tenant to request more than one wall sign and although she doesn't object to the number of signs requested, the height, area and placement of signs are gray areas. She recognizes Westfield's need for building signs which establishes their main entrances and helps vehicles navigate to the entrances but disagrees with signs being placed above the roofline. Total square footages for signage follow inevitably if height or area variances are granted. Ms. Rudolph asked if the best area for a second wall sign for Retail A is the east location. Ms. Wenger said that out of all the options for a second wall sign the east elevation was the best location. The applicants requested a brief recess which was granted. Mr. O'Malley recommended the board address any issues which may be contentious first. Mr. Lopez said overall he did not object to the number of signs but the sizes of some of the signs aren't warranted. Westfield signs do not need to exceed 8 feet although the setbacks warrant the