If the Cubs were granted all the legal requirements in order to expand Wrigley Field and place two new large outfield signs which will obstruct rooftop views, then why would the Cubs still want to negotiate a settlement with the rooftop owners?
There must be some gray area in the revenue sharing agreement that makes it not a slam dunk for the Cubs.
A possible wrinkle in the whole Wrigley rehab is what actually the Landmark Commission approved last July. The master signage approval was subject to five conditions:
1. Any of the information submitted by the applicant that references the size of the outfield
signs will need to be updated to match the agreed upon sizes as approved at the July 1, 2013
CCL meeting. A final draft of the corrected documents will be submitted as a record copy to
Historic Preservation staff before application of any permits.
2. Final details, specifications, cut-sheets, etc. for the proposed signs and lighting shall be
submitted for Historic Preservation staff review and approval as part of the permit
application. Any major change (as determined by the Commission staff) to the size, location
or height of the proposed sign shall be submitted to the Commission for review pursuant to
Article III, Sec. C(2) of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations.
3. The exterior of the right field sign and the neon left field sign will be a matte green paint
to match the exterior of the ballpark.
4. The exterior of the left field LED board will be designed with an architectural treatment
that will be reviewed pre-permit with Historic Preservation staff.
5. The Commission will consider future outfield sign proposals relative to the cumulative
visual impact of signage on the historic and architectural character of the ballpark. The size,
scale and spacing between signs would all be considered in future proposals.
The public has not actually seen the final architectural renderings for the signs. But throughout
process, the Cubs have continually changed the plans after discussions or preliminary approvals.
It could be that the actual final sign plans are different than what was discussed before the commission. It is not clear whether the Cubs have passed these conditions with their final sign plans.
And this may be the sticking point if the Cubs want changes to what was shown or discussed in 2013.
In any event, the final plans still need historical landmark staff approvals, which may or may not
be open to public comment.
