04/07/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10. A 199.25 foot varian.ce for ground signs too close to each other (sign #6 on mall prop.), (code permits 200', applicant shows 9"), section (1163.26 (A)). 11. A 199.25 foot variance for ground signs too close to each other (sign #7 on mall prop.), (code permits 200', applicant shows 9"), section (1163.26 (A)). 12. A 105 foot variance for ground sign too close to each other #2 exist Westfield sign on mall property, (code requires 200', applicant shows 95'), section (1163.26 A). 13. A variance for 12 ground signs on a lot (mall property) (see note), (code permits 2, applicant shows 12), section (1163.26 A). Which is in violation of 90-125, Section (1163.26 (A)), (1163.26 (C)), and (1163.29). Note: 3 proposed new plaza signs to be placed on ma11 properiy. 2 existing Westfield signs to be relocated by developers. 2 existing directional signs. 4 existing Westfield signs to remain as is. 1 existing U.S. Bank sign to remain as is. Department Reports: Mr. Conway indicated that although the number of signs is numerous the city codes was altered a few years earlier and only deals with signs which are visible from the right-of-way. Therefore, there are/were many inner directional signs that were not addressed until the new sign codes were put in place. He further reviewed that the perimeter signs in the front had previously been granted variances. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Villani with Developers Diversified, and Mr. Beeman, with Wagner Sign Company each came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Villani voiced that the ma11 would like to replace the existing signs. There are now two owners of the mall property and they have a sign package agreement between the two companies. The reason two signs are required at ea.ch loeation is due to the two companies wishing to have their own visibility. The signs are required to a11ow each owner the opportunity to advertise their own individual identities/tenants. Mrs. Diver voiced that the Board had been talking with the city to have owners come up with sign packages for their sites. However, she felt the number of signs being requested were beyond reasonable and questioned why there had to be two signs at each location. Mr. Beeman felt that the number of signs were required to give each owner adequate recognition. The board questioned why the different heights in the signs were needed and voiced that they did not want any of the signs to be higher than 9 feet tall. The board asked the applicant to look at combining the signs into one sign at each of the designated locations instead of two at each location. Mr. Villani stated that both owners were firm on wishing to have their own identity. Mr. Conway voiced that he did not feel any signs being placed within the line of sight should be granted variances as there is plenty of property for the placement of the signs being requested. The board questioned why signs #1, #2, and #3 were larger than the others requested. Mr. Beeman suggested that they were trying to reuse same of the existing foundations as well as some of the parts if possible. Mr. Villani said that they were also trying to match what was already approved for the Westfield signs so that there would be a cohesive look. W. Kremzar moved to grant Developers Diversified of 26437 Brookpark Road their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of new ground signs and that the following variance is granted as amended: 4. A 9 square foot variance for a ground sign larger than code permits (sign #1), (code permits 50 sq', applicant shows 59 sq'). 5. A 9 square foot variance for a ground sign larger than code permits (sign #3), (code permits 50 sq', applicant shows 59 sq'). 4