08/06/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

signs being taller than 4 feet the compromise should be somewhere between 4 and 8 feet. Signs do not need to be atop the roofline; as indicated by the building official there are other methods available to achieve the recognition they seek. Retail A sign 4 is beyond what is needed for visibility, 16 feet height is too much, it needs to be reduced regardless if letters are stacked or smaller. Mrs. Sergi agreed with Mr. Lopez and felt that existing ground signs at each main entrance already identify that it is a Westfield mall. Ms. Rudolph said she welcomed the improvements but felt the signs were slightly larger than needed but she did not object to placing them above the roof. She was not sure she agreed with the location of sign 6 although a sign is needed on the east elevation. Mrs. Bellido said the sign heights were too large but felt the mall signs above the roofline would look aesthetically nice and clearly identifies the main entrances. Overall she doesn't object to the request for nine signs but sign 4 is too extreme. Mrs. Diver said the heights requested are substantial and rooftop signs are not needed. Mr. O'Malley questioned if the board wished to have the Law Department draft findings for review and approval and Mrs. Diver indicated they would. Discussions ensued pertaining to boaxd members opinions of sign heights, locations of signs and number of signs. Overall the number of signs was not objectionable but the heights of sign numbers 2, 3 and 4 were excessive. Most members objected to signs above the roofline although Mrs. Bellido noted that buildings in front of the north entrance could block the sign if it was any lower. Mrs. Sergi felt the north and east elevations warranted signs but sign 6 was not warranted as it was not a direct entrance into the store. Board members felt the applicants could request smaller height variances and eliminate a few variances. Mr. O'Malley advised the board that if they wished to alter or modify specific variances requested the applicant should be invited to state whether or not they wish to stand on the application before the members proceeded to make motions. Mr. Vlaeminck requested a recess to discuss possible changes to the proposal which the board encouraged. Mr. Vlaeminck said Westfield wished to withdrawal their request for rooftop sign variances and submitted a new plan which showed the Westfield "W" remaining 8' 10" tall. Mr. Platt said they would like to amend the request for sign 4 to a 14 foot high 319 square foot wall sign with letters just under 4 feet tall. Mr. Mitchell said he didn't object to adding a new fagade to eliminate the variances however the fagade design would need to be reviewed by the Planning & Design Commission. The W is still too tall although more than 4 feet is warranted. Regarding sign 4 being reduced to a 14 feet he felt it would be a good compromise. Ms. Wenger said reducing sign 4 to 14 feet would architecturally fit and look better on the new fagade. Addressing signs 2& 3 she believed that an 8 foot height would be reasonable and comparable to the heights of other anchor stores attached to the mall. Mr. Vlaeminck said that they would withdrawal their requests to have 8' 10" W's and propose that signs 1, 2, and 3 be each 8 feet tall 203 square feet. Mrs. Diver thanked the applicants for working with the board. Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mrs. Sergi to grant CMS09-05 WEA Great Northern Mall of 4954 Great Northern Ma11 the following variances as amended: Westfield signage (signs 1, 2 and 3): 1. A variance for 1 additional wall sign (sign 2 east elevation); code permits 2 signs and 3 signs are shown. 2. A 4 ft height variance for wall sign (sign 1); code permits 4' and 8' is shown. 3. A 103 sq ft variance for total area of wall sign (sign 1); code permits 100 sq ft and 203 sq ft is shown. 4