10/06/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Krizman, with Rough Neon and Lighting Maintenance for the owner, came forward to be swom in and address the request. Mr. Krizman wanted to apologize to Mrs. Sergi for their earlier conversation at the site. Mrs. Sergi wanted to make it clear that while visiting the site she questioned if the signs on the building were the new sings or the old signs that was all. Mr. O'Malley strongly advised all the commissioner's that they should not speak, question, or interact with applicants prior to their meetings when they visit the sites. IVIrs. Diver questioned if a permit was pulled before the signs were changed. Mr. Krizman reviewed that the old signs on the building were replaced with smaller sings and are currently on the building. The faces along Brookpark and Lorain Roads were replaced as there were problems with the existing lights malfunctioning. The east elevation sign was deteriorating so the sign was replaced with a smaller sign. They were just trying to fix their signs which were falling apart. As he did not do the work he is not aware of the company that put the signs up or if a permit was pulled. It was his understanding that who ever put the signs in thought they were allowed as variances had already been granted for the signs oreginally. Mr. Conway advised that according ta city code if 50% of the cost is exceeded fixing a sign then the sign must meet current city codes. Therefore, if the applicants while fixing their signs exceeded 50% of the cost then they are required to bring their signs into campliance with today's codes. The applicants could have replaced every other letter this year and then came back next year to replace the other half of the letters. They are kind of caught on a technicality keeping up with their repairs. Mrs. Sergi stated that she would recluse herself from voting on the matter. W. Kremzar moved to grant Jennifer Convertilble of 26037 Lorain Road their request for variance (1123.12), vvhich consists of a new sign and tbat the following variances are granteai. 1. A variance for 3 signs on a exnnt (2 aafld"ational), (code perdnits 1, applacant sleows 3), seetion (1163.27 (A)). 2e A 34 square foot variance for total square footage of wall signs on a unif, (eode permits 56 sq ft, applieant shows 90 sq ft), section (1163.24 (C)). Which is im violatioo of Ord. 90-125 sections (1163.27 (A)) ancl (1163.24 (C)). J. 1Vialoney seconaled the tnotion, roll call mn the motion; W. Kremzac, T. Kelly,lVl. Diver J. Maloney "yes" and N. Sergi abstained. Variances Granted IV. COlVIIVIiJMCATION: • Commissioner's need to address a letter received from Attorney Bruce Itinker petitioning the Board of Zoning Appeals Board to aeconsider the TargetlSign Lite of 24646 Brookpark Road variance requests of September 1, 2005. Prior to the start of the case, Board member M. Diver excused herself from the bench. Mr. Rinker the Attorney for Target and 1VIr. Schiely the Architect each came forward to be sworn in and address the request to be reconsidered. Mr. IZinker passed out photos of the Target building and thanked the board for addressing the request for reconsideration. They would like to be given the opportunity to readdress the Board of Zoning Appeals in the matter of their ruling of the Target logo sign only. The history of the site has past litigations and has been an on going challenge for everyone involved. If the Board allows the reconsideration they would like to be placed on the November docket to be addressed. Mr. Rinker reviewed that the photos handed out were to give the board an idea of the e7cisting site. The site fronts onto Brookpark Road which is a limited access highway and nans the entire length of the southern property line. Although the city and owners would like to have 2 curb cuts onto Brookpark Road O.D.O.T. has refused and has suggested that access be sought through West View Drive or onto Columbia Road. However, the owners have chosen to accoynmodate the abutting residents and City's request to not seek access at either of the residential locations. A lot of thought and design was put into the layout of the.site as well as wall signs. Therefore, with all those factors taken into consideration if they are allowed the opportunity they would like to show the Board how the prior wall signs requested are impacted not only by the layout of the Target building itself, but by the three future buildings as well. Building B will be located directly to the east of the main entrance and buildings C& D will be directly to the west of the entrance. As those three outer buildings have yet to be constructed it is very easy to visibly see that the building is in fact a Target store, but as the site development proceeds his clients feel that it will becoane increasingly difficult to determine which building is in fact the Target 4of7