09/22/1993 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

have smaller canopies over the drive thru, not the large canopies shown. The pole sign shown in the picture was also much larger and mueh higher.than what they are requesting. Mr. Sohn asked where the pole sign would be loeated. Mr. Wassermarm responded that.originally they had asked for two pole signs, but since they were told that they were restricted to one, it will be placed at the corner of Lorain and Dover Center Roads. Although pole signs are in the process of being eliminated, Mr. Zergott be:lieved.that a graund sign in this area would hinder visibility. It was clarified that the reader board is prohibited also. Mr. Wassermann stated that they need a main pole or.pylon sign, and they would like to convince the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow a changeable copy signm Mr. Gallagher again noted that a11 poles signs would have to be removed by 1998, but since there is a problem of safety in this area, this corner might be considered a ha,rdship, and a sign might have to be high enough to allow visibilitya Mr. Wassermarm stated that without the changeable copy sign, there would be about 20 feet to the bottom of the sign cabinet, and this could be adjusted. He also stated the sign would be about 24 to 27 square feEt and could be on either a single or double.pole with a pole cover. Mr. Zergott stated that he would like to approve the copy of the sign, without making a recomunendation for either a pole or ground sign, but the board would recommend that the Board of Zoning Appeals consider the safety factor on that corner, but considering the amount of exposure there a huge pole sign would not be needed. He advised that.the concept of the building sign is fine, but the size is up to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Gallagher suggested that a second wall sign, either on the building or on the canopy might be a solution, and a sign on the white. wall might even stand out more than the pole sign since there would be more contrast..He stated that if the developers would consider rhis, the board would recommend tha.t a variance be granted for two wall signs. Mr. Sohn agreed that a wall or eanopy sign might be preferable, and believed thit the Carni.val Red pole sigp.which is bright, glossy, and shiny would be too strong for this corner. T. Gallagher moved to recommend that Rally's.consider putting a second sign on the building, either on the canopy or on the white drivit area of the building which would accent the sign, instead of a pole sign which is too strong. TYie wall sign could be the same size and at the height and the color must mateh the building, seconded by S. Krieger, and unan;mously approved. It was clarified that if the variance is granted for a pole sign, Mr. Sohn objected to it being so glossy and shiny. IV. OLD BUSINESS: No items. V. NEW BUSINESS: 1) Society National Ba.nk, 26401 Brookpark Road, Great Northern Shopping Center (on the present site of Putt-Putt). Proposal to construct free standing building. Mr. Papandreas, representing Great Northern Shopping Center, introduced Mr. Sandrock and Mr. Smith, architects for Society National Bank and explained that the shopping center has been working closely with Society in the formation of the plan. Mr. Sandrock stated.that since Society nerged with Ameritru.st they moved both faEilities into the Ameritrust facility in the strip center and abandoned the Society building on GrPat Northern Boulevard since there would be difficulty expanding this building. They now intend to construct a larger free standing building to accommodate the increased business. Mr. Smith explained that.the location will be between the Finast store and Chi Chi.'s restaurant off the ring road. There will be a through the wal.l AoT.M., an island A.T.M. with room to add 2