07/22/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

due to its frontage. Commissioners felt that as there is a point of egress at each elevation three signs were warranted. Ms. Meredith said due to the large size of sign 4 on the south elevation, sign 6 on the east penthouse wall was not warranted as the building design and sign on the south elevation was sufficient recognition. Mr. Lasko said sign 6 on the penthouse looked out of place and should be removed. There is no doubt as to the identity and location of Retail A by looking at the design of the building and sign 6looked to take away from Retail B's recognition. Mr. Cotner said that the location and design for Retail A will give the tenant substantial visibility from the I-480 interchange as well as Country Club and Great Northern without the penthouse sign. Mr. Vlaeminck said Retail A as a standard has two wall signs and requires high visibility. Ms. Meredith said the location is the main entrance it would be hard pressed to say that visibility was limited for Retail A. Commissioners agreed that based on the design, location and fact that both signs are only 100 sq ft and there are two points of egress for Retail B two wall signs are warranted. Mr. Lasko questioned why Westfield signs were of different sizes. Mr. Vlaeminck said that the east and north elevation identify Westfield's main entrances the south sign is just to identify that it is a Westfield mall. If the east Westfield mall sign is required to be below the roof line it would not be visible from the south and the W is 10 inches taller as they are on main entrances. Mr. Platt said the mall's main access was always the south entry and although they gave up the main entrance they would like to keep their recognition on the south elevation. Mr. Bohlmann didn't want to see any signs above the roofline. Ms. Meredith said she did not object to signs over the roofline as the entrances need to be visible. Both the north and east elevations are behind other buildings so it would make the entrances dramatic and provide more visibility; Mr. Malone agreed that the signs would note the entrances. Mr. Platt said the north elevation sign also has visibility issues as it is behind Dick's and Smokey Bones. Council Member Orlowski said he supported the improvements Westfield was proposing. He did not object to moving and improving the food court if it helps maintain their viability. If a new food court is installed a current air change system should be installed to ensure odors are removed from the area. Having a new anchor tenant at the south elevation is nice but suggested muting the blue color and although he felt Westfield needed signage he would withhold any comments on signage as he has not viewed it yet. Mr. Lasko moved, seconded by Ms. Meredith, to recommend the Board of Zoning Appeals grant CMS09-05 Westfield Great Northern Mall of 4954 Great Northern Mall, Retail A the following variances: 1. Sign 6: a 5 ft 1" variance for height of sign; code allows 4 ft and 91" is shown. 2. Sign 6: a 34 sq ft variance for total sq ft; code allows 100 sq ft and 134 sq ft is shown. Roll call: Lasko, Meredith, Bohlmann - no; Malone, Williamson, Cotner - yes; motion failed 3-3. Mr. Vlaeminck requested a brief recess to discuss signage which was granted. Mr. Barnett said Retail A requires a sign on the east elevation. A brief discussion ensued regarding the size and location of Sign 6. Mr. Platt recommended placing sign 6 within Westfield's east entry to let customers know there is an interior entry; the sign would meet a'rea and height requirements. Ms. Meredith did not believe Retail A needed recognition on the east