This is what happened at the April 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting:
1. The Planning Commission just barely had a quorum. However, they said that they would act on right then on the submission of the modified ground sign (even though they had not had sufficient time to review it since it was just handed in today) if the applicant wanted, (which they did). Then, however, the PC decided that because it had been just handed in, they had not had time to review it and suggested that they close the hearing on the “old” application and resubmit an amended application. As a result, another public hearing will be noticed to the public and held on May 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM.
2. Commissioner Kathy Murphy did state that the issue is whether or not a waiver is justified and that if it is determined to be justified, then the location, size, etc. will be dealt with.
3. The attorney for the developer said that they wanted to have the planning commission move on the mortar and pestle and the other wayfinding signs and it was stated that the wall facade signs had already been voted on. But the Commission preferred to review the whole package of all waivers together rather than break them up and have to move backwards to start from square one. Therefore, they did in fact close the hearing.
4. The Commission was told that the developer met twice with the neighborhood and that the meetings were well attended (30 people at the meeting of April 22, and the negligeable number at the first). They failed to mention that the revised ground sign had not been reviewed with the public.
5. The end result is that the application will be resubmitted and reviewed as a new application.
Basically, what is remaining to be reviewed are all of the waiver requests. Remember that the ground sign has been scaled down, but it is still prohibited under the design guidelines.
Thanks to Maureen Harding, who drove from Buffalo to attend this meeting, for taking the notes that provided the above information.
Has anyone noticed if members of the Eastwood Chamber of Commerce are actively soliciting business patrons and/or employees to sign petitions in favor of the signage?