09/01/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

landscaped bed. Mrs. Hall indicated that she was not aware that #he sign was on her property or that what she signed was a release, but it is o.k. to have the new sign located as shown. Mr. O'Malley suggested that it would be ideal if the sign was on the condo's own land as they would not require a variance for a billboard. Mr. Rymarczyk stated that the entire sign was located on Ms. Ha11's property not just the landscape bed. Mrs. Sergi voiced that she was concerned that the sign would be located on the neiglabor's property. She liked the look of the sign, but felt it was too big to place in the neighbor's front yard. Mrs. Diver agreed with Mrs. Sergi and requested the size of the sign as well as the landscape bed be decreased to allow better visibility. Mr. Denman indicated that he could decrease the size of the base so the sign is 5-feet. Moved to grant Woodscape Condominium (Itich Denman) of 229681VIaple Ridge Road their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of replacing a ground sign and that the following variances are granted as affiended: 1. A variance foa- a grouad sigai located on a residential district, (code does not permit, applicant shows 1), section (1163.26 (A)). 2. A variance for a billboard sign, (code does not pecmit, applicant shows 1), section (1163.29). Contingent upon the new billboard sign is not to be over 5-feet bigh. Which is an aiolation of Ord. 90-125 section; (1163.26 (A)) amd (1163.29). N. Sergi seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. Target/Sign Lite; 24646 Brookaark Road: (WRD 4) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new wa11 sign. The following variance is requested: 1. A variance for 3 wall signs bn a building, (code permits 1, applicant shows 3). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1163.27 A). Note: 1). Tota1 signage on the lat not aeailable with this application. 2). Board of Zoning Appeals postponed request on 7/7/05 and tabled the request on 8/4/05. Prior to the start of the request board member Maureen Diver excused herself from discussion and stepped down from the bench as she is an abutting neighbor and member of the homeowners association. Mr. Schiely the Architect, Mr. Bizjack with Sign Lite, Mr. Kalina wi#h Adams Signs and the following residents; Mr. McKay, Mrs. Diver, each came forwa.rd to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Kalina indicated that after a meeting with the Owner and Building Commissioner he comprised a sign criteria, that would both be pleasing to the City, the Developer, and potential owners/tenants. The letter dated Augiast 25, 2005 from Building Comanissioner Conway was submitted prior to their meeting ass they met Monday, August 29, 2005. Since their meeting the sign package was amended and as of today only a couple of items addressed in the Commissioners letter remain. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that a quick glance at the new criteria shows there are 4 items still needing to be addressed in the sign criteria submitted September 1, 2005; 1). Criteria states 3 wall signs allowed for major tenants which would require a variance and it is not disclosed as to where the signs would be located on the buildings. 2}. Sign criteria allows for second floor signage to be the same size as allowed on first floor and some of the major tena.nts would be allowed possibly up to three signs which no signs are allowed on second floor by city code. 3). Sign criteria ca11s for second floor signs, but does not disclose location of signs and again city codes do not allow second floor signs. 4). The informational, directional or under canopy signs are not allowed by code. 2of10