Laserfiche WebLink
was found to exceed allowable unit sign area by 14 square feet after permit issuance and <br />installation. <br />Mr. Young stated that the protocol was followed when applying for the sign permit. The sign has <br />a large wire raceway, which is required by the landlord. The applicant stated that the sign square <br />footage was not measured including the raceway, but according to the code, it should be included <br />in the calculations. Mr. Raig did not believe the sign looked out of place. <br />Mr. Allain moved, seconded by Mr. Papotto, to grant the following variance as written for <br />17-8313; Petvalu; 27246 Lorain Road: <br />1. A 14 sq. ft. variance for excessive sign face area on a building; code permits 40 sq. ft., <br />applicant shows 54 sq. ft., Section 1163.25(c). <br />Motion passed 4-0. <br />17-8319; loTorthern View Villas: 4879 Columbia Road <br />Representative: Jodi McCue, McCue Design Group, 4050 Erie Street, Willoughby, OH <br />Proposal consists of a new ground sign. The property is zoned Multiple Residence (Apartment) <br />District. The following variance is requested: <br />1. A variance for a ground sign located in the right-of-way, code requires a setback of 5 ft. from <br />any right-of-way line, applicant shows sign entirely within the right-of-way, Section <br />1163.27(b). <br />Mr. Aspery stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the installation of a new <br />ground monument sign for the Northern View Villas Apartments. The sign is proposed to be <br />installed on the southeast corner of Columbia and Brookpark Roads in the location of the <br />existing ground sign. Because it is a new sign, as opposed to a refaced existing sign, code <br />requires that all applicable setbacks must be met. The applicant currently shows the sign entirely <br />within the right-of-way; all other code requirements have been met as shown. <br />Ms. McCue stated that an updated sign was installed in 2010. They would like to upgrade the <br />other signage to match the updated sign. The materials would match and would be in the <br />character of neighboring properties. The corner is busy, with poles and a utility box currently <br />there. A tree would need to be removed to install the sign and stacked cars would block the sign. <br />Mr. Papotto believed the newer sign on Brookpark looks nice and would like the other sign to <br />match. He was concerned about the sign being in the right of way and the future need for the <br />utility vehicles to access the property would require the sign to be moved. He questioned what <br />the liability would be if the sign was allowed to be in the right of way. Mr. Allain agreed with <br />these concerns. Ms. McCue stated that the sidewalk already had a jog in it but the sign was <br />already there and was replaced. Mr. Mackey asked if there is space to erect the sign if it is <br />installed inside the right of way. She did not think the sign would be visible if it was installed <br />where it would be permitted. Mr. Aspery suggested tabling the proposal to confer with the Law <br />Department. <br />1VIr. Mackey moved, seconded by Mr. Allain, to table the proposal for 17-8319; Northern <br />View Villas; 4879 Columbia Road, motion passed 4-0.