06/02/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Schulz indica.ted that he had a problem with the number of signs being placed at the entrance. He questioned who . was requesting the 2 Target ground signs as Planning Commission only approved Target to have one waR sign over the main entrance of the store. N1r. Schiely advised that Target is. the anchot tenant of the site and it was always their intent to ha.ve two ground signs on ` the lot- They never presented a sign package to Planning Commission for review although tliey did discuss the placement of the entrance sign. Brief drscussion regarding the second curb-cut alang Broakgark Road took place and the emergeacy pavers to be piaced at the east side of the site. The board felt that the secand Target ground sign was not needed if the proposed curb-cut was not granted. mrs. Sergi questioned why the applicant had nat presenteci a sign package which included the waii signs for the fenants. She further questioned when the applicants would be presenting the package for wall signs. Mr. Kalima stated tt4at th.ey would have a wall sign paclcage submitted for the next Board of Zoning Appeals aneeting but, due to comffiiiment dates set by Target their ground sagns must be in place by a specific date. Mr. Schiely advised that Target is seheduted to open on October 9, 2005 and they are still in discussions for Ieasing buiidings B, C, & D so final tenanits are nmt finalized. Mrs. Sergi advised flhat she was concerned that the appficants are just addressing ground signs and they already exceed wha.t code allows, wluch means no matter what type of wall signs are progosed they too wouid require vanarices and glaces the Board of Zoning Appeals in an awkward position. Mr. Kaiina felt tiiat a.lthough 8 variances were required most o€ them dealt with the disEanee between the signs. Mr_ it+Iaioney felt that the ground sign package would contaol the signage on the site aald understood that the applicant vuould subnit a vvaR sign package vvlnch wouid be elase to code. Mr. Sclieiy felt tihat locatian of the ground signs were needed to no€ misiead patrans entering the site. Mr. Schulz voiced that he was against the sign package due tca the number, and size of the signs being reqinested_ The only ground sign thhat was discussed by Planning Comnission was a curvecl wall depieting the name of the center at the main entrance. The applacants never disclosed that they wanted 6 ground signs at the main entrance at anytime. Mas. Sergi qnestioned what the applicant was going to do to eliminate the amount of vatiances nequired. 14Ir. Ryffiarczyk questioned if Target was requesting 2 wall signs one to be placed at the entrance and one for the wall which faces Brookpark Road. Mr. Kalina suggested thaf the ground sign near the T'arget building woutd only be put in place if Target acquires the eurb cut onto BrookparTc Road. Mr. O'Malley adwised the Board tm make sure that if they wish to uphold wbat they have told the applicants regarding not being allowed any further ground signs for the site, and that they wauld not allow 2wall signs ger tenant nor approve a Iot of variances for wall sigas then the board needeci to spell out fhase conditions in #heir mo4ion. Mrs. Diver advised fhat due to having a personal interest in the site being the secretary of the Homeowneis Association she would ha.ve to abstain from all dgscussions regarding North Olmsted Town Center. Mrs. Sergi adarnantly voiced that she was agaimst the number of signs being placed at the main entrmce as well as the g,round sagns exceeding the allowable square footage allowed by code. J. IMaloney moved to Uant N.O. TowII Ceater (Parcel E) of 24642-25174 Brookpark Road their reque.st for variance (1423.12), which consists of a siga package and that the following variances $re granted as amended: l. A variance for 5 ground signs and 1 additional ground sign A easf with the condition that a second cnrb cut is gr?nted by O D.O.?'. onto Brookpark Road, (code permits 2, applicant shoevs (?}, section (1163.26 (A)). 13 of 15