Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />? <br />7N <br />Proposal consists of a new sign. The property is zoned B-1 Local Business. The following <br />variances are requested: <br />1. A variance permitting an additional ground sign; property is permitted 3, applicant shows 4; <br />Section 1163.27(a). <br />2. A 49 ft. variance for setback from residentially-zoned property; code requires 75 ft., <br />applicant shows setback of 26 ft. from northern property line where abutting lot is zoned <br />Multiple Residence; Section 1163.27(b). <br />Mr. Aspery stated that the applicant is proposing to install a new ground sign at the northeast <br />corner of the property. This property was previously granted a variance permitting a sign in the <br />required sight triangle area, but variances are still required for overall sign quantity and for <br />setback from a residential property line. The second variance had not been addressed in previous <br />sign reviews due to oversight and that the residentially-zoned land to the north is ciarrently being <br />used as a church, not as a single family home. <br />Mr. Swidrak stated that some of the plaza's customers have difficulties finding the entrances for <br />the plaza. There is not much signage for the northeast entrance on Clague Road. Heading south, <br />the traffic notices the entrance when it is too late to enter the driveway. Mr. Raig asked if the <br />sign would be visible due to the landscaping. Mr. Swidrak stated the sign would be easier to <br />view at a slower speed. <br />Vern Davis, Clague Road Congregation trustee, stated that the church did not have a problem <br />with the sign but they are concerned with the sign illumination. Mr. Davis asked if the sign could <br />be moved to southern side of the driveway to provide better visibility. Even though the visibility <br />from the church's driveway is not affected much, they did not want a commercial sign so close to <br />the driveway. Mr. Swidrak stated that they considered the sign location to the south of the <br />driveway, but there is a tree in the landscape island which would have to be removed and the <br />access to power is more limited. <br />Mr. Allain suggested separate motions on the variances. Mr. Papotto believed that the setback <br />issue would still apply if the sign was moved to the other side of the driveway. Mr. Allain and <br />Papotto did not have a problem with the request for the additional sign. Mr. Allain believed the <br />second variance is a significant variance and hearing objections from the neighbors confirmed <br />his initial thoughts. He did not think the issue of power access necessitates the variance. Mr. <br />Raig believed that signage and accessibility are huge factors for keeping tenants in the plaza. He <br />did not think that the applicant was asking much more than what was there in the past. Mr. <br />Gareau stated that denying the variance would mean they could not put the sign on that corner <br />and would need to look at other locations. Mr. Mackey was concerned about public safety and <br />ingress/egress issues in regards to the signage. Mr. Swidrak believed the location of the sign is <br />better on either side of the driveway depending on which direction the drivers are going. He did <br />not think the visibility for drivers would be affected either way for egress. Mr. Swidrak requested <br />tabling the vote for the second variance until the next meeting. <br />Mr. Allain moved, seconded by Mr. Mackey, to grant the following variance for 17-9790; <br />Cornerstone Plaza; 23420 Lorain Road: <br />1. A variance permitting an additional ground sign; property is permitted 3, applicant <br />shows 4; Section 1163.27(a). <br />4