09/01/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. O'Ma11ey advised that the master sign law was enacted after the applicant received approval and technically they have not gone before Planning Commission with a master sign package. He advised the board that they were not reviewing a master sign plan as the applicants were just attempting to accommodate the boards concern as to the allocatian of square footage within the plaza. Although the master sign ordinance was enacted based upon the Board of Zoni.ng Appeals recommendation that Council address the issue of anchor tenants consuming the majority of square footage allowed on a site, causing all future tenants to require variances. Mr. Kalina indicated that the way the plaza is setup, there would be blade signs/under canopy signs to show consumers the name of the.store they are standing in front of because no other type of signage would be allowed. There intent is to make sure that the minor tenant is allocated a square footage that won't get consumed by major tenants. The sign criteria designates thpee types of tenants; anchor, major, and minor tenants. The formula used is one to one as required by North Olmsted sign codes. The second floor will not be allowed a11ot of second floor signage, but if there is a major tenant such as the Cleveland Clinic they would want a second floor sign. What has been submitted as sign criteria is based on a worst case scenario. They want to create a nice happy medium for everyone involved and although the sign package is not totally there yet it is a starting point and additional work to improve it would continue. The allocated (sign) square footage allowed is based on each individual store front. Tenants with very large store frontage will only be allowed to use a total of 50% of the storefronts total square footage, when calculating the one to one formula for their individual signs. 1Vlinor tenaxits will only be allowed to use a total of 75% of the storefronts total square footage vvhen calculating their signs. Mr. O'Malley suggested the applicants review any possible future variances which may be required to give #he board an idea of what they could expect in the future from the site. Mr. Kalina suggested that the following would be possible variance requests; *multiple sign variances, *square footage must meet the requirements of the City of IVorth Olmsted codes, *tenants will not be allowed to apply/request variances unless Carnegie gives them written permission. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that in addition to the above variance mentioned the applicants would a.lso require variances for; *any canopy signs, *directional signs, and *a11 second floor signage as well. A brief discussion pertaining to the Board of Zoning Appeals possibly granting blanket variances for sign issues the property owners would be responsible for took place. Mrs. Sergi remarked that that in fact is the boards concern wlgich was voiced at the Juaie 2, 2005 meeting and when Mr. Kalina himself assured the board that t.here would be no further directionaUground signs requested for the entire site. Now the ground/directional signs are being lifted off the ground and being relocated under the canopy, thereby skirting the issue of the board's condition that no fuather ground signs be requested or approved. Mr. Kalina said all directional signs would be the same size (2'x 3'), burguxidy color and would not be illuminated. Mr. Rymarczyk reviewed that the criteria submitted would only allow tenants with space over 25,000 square feet to have more than one sign. The board inquired the status of the south-east side cu.rb cut which was being appealed to Coluanbus. Mr. Schiely indicated that Columbus upheld the denial as they felt that the site could have egresses along Columbia Road as well as Westview Drive. Mr. Kalina indicated that although at is not a sta.te law the Pharmaceutical Board recoinmends that if a pharmacy is within a building it should have a sign placed on the outside of the building. 3of10