pages: PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-08-08 | 7 | 9-C. MDR05-0216 - Regency Centers, LLC. - 2599 Blanding Ave (AT). The applicant requests sign program approval for the Bridgeside Shopping Center. The site is located within a C-2 PD Central Business Planned Development District. Mr. Tai presented the staff report, and displayed the various signage options. Staff recommended approval of this item. The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Ms. McNamara inquired why the signs needed to be so large. She expressed concern about the lighting of the tower sign. Mr. Bruce Qualls, representing Regency Centers, stated that good signage was critical to the success of a retailer. He noted that the size of the monument could be bigger and in a more prominent location. He noted that the Nob Hill sign was 30 square feet, and that the architectural element added cohesiveness and an attractive common element to the center. Mr. Jerry Weiman, sign consultant, gave a brief background of his involvement in this project, and described his rationale in designing each signage element. He felt that a large panel sign would be inappropriate for the tower signage; using letters were a better method for this element. He noted that would be a visible and bright sign; they still appear to be an open-channel letter. He noted that he used the concept of marine architecture as inspiration for this project. He described each signage element in detail. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the color of the materials and colors of the bridge arch figure, Mr. Weiman replied that it would be either aluminum or steel, either powder- coated or painted with a polyurethane enamel. The width of the monument sign would be approximately 12 feet wide, and the columns would be two feet thick. Ms. McNamara expressed concern that the sign placed at the end of the canvas awning ends up overwhelming the proposed softness, as opposed to putting the sign above the canvas awning. Mr. Weiman noted that was where the roof started, and that was problematic to the placement of the sign. Ms. McNamara noted that she would not favor roof-mounted signs. President Cunningham noted that the Board was very concerned about open visibility with respect to window signs, and he was concerned that there were no restrictions or criteria to define how much window signage can actually occur. Mr. Tai advised that staff included the exact language currently in the latest sign ordinance, specifying Planning Board Minutes Page 7 August 8, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf |