05/06/2013 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

objects to the height and area variances requested. She supports the building official's recommendation. Mr. Raig asked if the east sign was pre-existing with additional wording being added and Mr. Gramley said no the south wall sign is pre-existing. Mr. Gramley said the additional wording is to identify they are not just a coat factory. Ms. Rudolph questioned why Baby Depot required a separate sign and Mr. Gramley said they are a separate business and the height of the signs is due to the setback of the building. Mr. Raig said the height of the east Burlington wall sign without the additional wording would still require a height variance. Board members had no objections to three wall signs however didn't believe allowable height and total square footage should be exceeded. Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mr. Lopez, to grant Surlington of 5150 Great Northern Plaza South a variance for 3 wall signs on a unit; code allows 2 wall signs, applicant shows 3 wall signs, Section 1163.28(A) which passed 4-0. Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by 1dIr. Lopez, to grant Burlington of 5150 Great Northern Plaza South a 163.2 square foot variance for a sign larger than allowed; code allows 100 sq. ft., applicant shows 263.2 sq. ft. (sign A), Section 1163.28(c) which failed 0-4. Board members objected to a wall sign more than double the square footage allowed by code as the setback of the building didn't warrant such a request. Mr. Lopez moved, seconded by Mr. Raig, to grant Burlington of 5150 Great Northern Plaza South a 4.7 foot height variance for east wall sign (sign A); code allows 4 ft., applicant shows 8.7 ft., Section 1163.28(c) which failed 0-4. Mr. Raig moved, seeonded by Mr. Lopez, to grant Burlington of 5150 Great Northern Plaza South a 1.2 foot height variance for east wall sign (sign B); code allows 4 ft., applicant shows 5.2 ft., Section 1163.28(c) which failed 0-4. COMMUNICATION Request for Reconsideration: Walgreens; 24590 Lorain Road Joel Fezell was administered the oath. Mr. Frezell said the owner is trying to bring their ground sign into the 20t" century. They are replacing a manual reader board with an electronic reader board. He noted other commercial sites which have electronic signs and said that his client was denied their variance not based on the facts presented but rather the board's concern that granting the variance would open the city to additional variance requests. His client already has a manual reader board they are just changing the method as to how it will be changed. The only thing different in an electronic board than manual board is it looks better, is modern and Walgreens can easily change their message. His clients would agree to how often their messages can change. He doesn't understand the city's right to have an electronic reader board and the rest of the city can't. Mr. Gareau said the zoning code is designed and implemented for regulating private property and doesn't apply to City property. The applicant states his case should be judged based upon their own merits not what is and isn't granted to others yet their reconsideration request is based on what other property owners have claiming they should be allowed the same. Mr. Frezell said his request for reconsideration is based on the fact they