12/11/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ell not believe Mr. Rini was aware of this meeting. Mr. Gomersall explained he was notified. Mr. Maloney wondered if ninety days would grant enough time. Mr. Gomersall clarified that he is not willing to keep continuing this case, and explained it is their responsibility to come up with a resolution. Mr. Hansen explained from now on he will send all letters of documentation certified so that the board will know he has attempted to amend the situation. Mr. Gomersall clarified the issue is getting it done, and not arguing whether or not someone has done as they claim. He noted, it is not the boards responsibility to contact Mr. Rini. Mr. Maloney elaborated, the tenant should get permission from the landlord before coming before this board. The board was willing to continue the case until the February meeting, but warned that, if the situation is not resolved by then the sign would have to be removed. Assistant Building Commissioner Rymarczyk clarified a variance is also requued for excess sign area for a business unit. Mr. Hansen believed, because Harmon Glass and Custom Tint are two separate entities, they should be allowed an equal amount of signage. Mr. Rymarczyk clarified that two separate signs is permissible, however the proposed signage is over the square footage allowed. Mr. Hansen argued 75 square foot of signage is permissible by code. Mr. Gomersall clarified this should be worked out,with the building department, and will continue the proposal until the February meeting. It was clarified the next meeting will be February 5, 1997. R.Gomersall motioned to continue the case of Custom Tint, 25770 Lorain Road. until the February 5, 1997 meeting. The motion was seconded by M. J. Boyle and unauimously approved. Following this case, Mr. Gareau explained typically the board indicates the presence of the non- voting members in the minutes. He indicated this was not present in the November minutes. Mr. Gomersall requested that the minutes be amended to include the presence of non-board members. 2. Jiff yLube, 5000 Great Northem Mall. Request for variance (1123.12). Request signage variances for the following: . Request variance to have three (3) more wall signs than permitted by code. Request 169.75 square foot variance for total sign area. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1163.12 (a) and 1163.11 (c): Chainnan Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mr. Archer, sign contractor. Mr. Gomersall wondered why all these signs are needed. Mr. Archer explained there are many reasons for the excess signage. The first is for identification reasons as this type of business depends on a drive by situation. The reason for the three sign locations is because of the design of the building. Finally, Mr. Archer believed this is a physical situation peculiar in itself as the building is immense in comparison to the proposed signage. Mr. Gomersall clarified there are existing signs on the building and wondered if any of the e}usting signs will be removed if the Tiffy Lube signage is pea?mitted. Mr. Archer could not verify the intent for the existing signs. He explained, the awning will be non-illuminated and used mainly for weather protection. Mr. Gomersall noted the architectural review board's vote was split on t.his proposal. Mr. Archer explained, this is not the type of business that would do well if they advertised inside the mall. Mr. Gomersall stated the existing traffic pattern in this area is such that it would be very difficult to attract interest from the road. Mr. Archer believed it would attract attention, as someone waiting at a traffic light may notice that they can get their oil changed while shopping in the mall. Mr. Purper wondered if the Sears Auto Center will remain. Mr. Archer could not positively verify if the Auto Center sign would remain. In response, Mr. Puxper questioned how much square footage each business will use. Mr. Maloney did not believe a Jiffy Lube sign is needed on all elevations, as 2