Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />conforming it would have to be removed in 1998. Mr. Kalina presented a photograph of the <br />existing Main Street Cafe sign, which will be refaced. Mr. Liggett noted, although this logo has <br />been presented in a effective manner, it is inconsistent with what this board has been trying to <br />accomplish. He elaborated, allowing this logo may encourage the installation of less tactfullogos. <br />Mr. Kalina understood the boards dileinma of wanting to keep consistent and prevent tacky signs, <br />however, he felt the board should consider the fact the logo enhances the sign. Mr. Yager <br />suggested removing the two guys and filling in the gap with a solid color. Mr. Kalina argued that <br />this store is projected to.open in three weeks and having a different sign in each municipality will <br />hinder the establishment of a national identity. Mr. Yager noted that this will happen, as many <br />communities reject logos outright and may not even allow- an architectural review board to <br />consider the proposal. Mr. Liggett preferred that the sign be illwniuated ;with a ground light <br />instead of internally lit. Mr. Kalina argued, it would look better for the sign to be internally <br />illuminated because the brown is opaque and in fact only the center of the sign wou.ld be lit. <br />Although this sign is aesthetically good, Mr. Zergott noted the board should not discrimiuate, as <br />other proposals were denied because of the logo. Mr. Yager elaborated that every sign with a <br />logo that has come before this board has been denied, with a few exceptions beyond this boards <br />control, however this is the first sign that is a integral element. After some discussion, the board <br />agreed to take a vote on the grou.nd sign as presented. <br />M. Yager motioned to approve the ground sign as presented, seconded by T. Gallagher. Roll call <br />on motion, Gallagher, Zergott, Yager, yes. Liggett, no. Motion carried. . <br />Mr. Yager clarified this entire proposal should be modified as follows: The sign shall be lowered <br />on the building; the logo shall be removed from the awniug; and the ground sign is approved as <br />presented: <br />N. OLD BUSINESS: <br />V. NEW BUSINESS: <br />1) Studio Plus, proposal to construct a hotel; location is located on the south side of <br />Country Club Boulevard, east of Victoria Plaza Apartments. <br />Referred by planning commission July 23, 1996. <br />Heard by board of zoning appeals August 8, 1996. <br />Mr. Johuson and Mr. Cornett presented the proposal. It was clarified that the site is between <br />Tech Park II and the Victoria Plaza Apartments. Mr. Johnson explained that the proposal is to <br />construct 92 units, which are actually suites of various sizes. There are miniature kitchens in each <br />unit, and this is an extended stay hotel. Mr. Cornett noted the suites must be rented out for more <br />than one night, but.not more than 30 days. Mr. Johnson stated there will be ?parking facilities, a <br />trash enclosure, a pool with deck, and a patio area in the back. At the request of several of the <br />committees, Mr. Johnson agreed to include a three to five foot mound with evergreens to screen <br />off the abutting residential lots. Mr. Yager asked where the Tech Park Drive is in relation,to this <br />proposaL Mr. Johnson responded it is within the five to eight foot area and will be tied in, to <br />prevent an overflow of traffic. Mr. Liggett stated there are several trees along the site, and