11/03/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Brookpark Road one iri line with i]Ja1-1VIart and a right in only located approximately 300 feet (+ or -) to the east of that, but that was rejected by O.D.O.T. which places a constraint on the site. 30% or more of the retail traffic attracts patrons through visibility which the building does not have. Current codes only allow one wall sign per building and there is a target sign at the main entrance and a variance was granted for a second wa11 sign (pharmacy) on the west side of the building. It was reviewed that there would be three additional buildings constructed on the site, two of which would be located on either side of the entrance (buildings B& C) to the site and would impede Targets visibility. A site plan was submitted which highlighted the line of site for vehicles at the intersection of Great Northern Blvd and.Brookpark Road to correlate the traffic flows visibility once the future buildings are constructed. Building B is to be two stories, building C single story and building D would be two stories and each of the buildings would front onto Brookpark Road and block more than 40% of the west view of the Target store. Traffic traveling from the east would pass the building and not have adequate time to prepare to enter the site by the time they see the ground sign. The building was designed to appear to be more than one store and the delivery trucks which enter the site now are confused as to where the Target store starts and ends and where the loading dock is located. Due to the loading dock being located along Brookpark Road it was architeeturally designed to appear to be a store front and even the west side of the building appears to be more than one store which was requested by the residents, Planning Commission and City Council, all of which makes it unclear as to where T'arget starts and ends. Placing a sign (logo) on the south side of the building is very significant to his client's ability to succeed in a very coixipetitive corridor of the city. It was suggested that the city already acknowledged the area required more than one wall sign on a building as the majority of the existing retail businesses in the area were granted variances for multiple wa11 signs. The south frontage is a practical difficulty issue and if signage is not allowed it would significantly affect the operation of the business as well as adversely impact existing traffic issues of the area. The total square footage of a11 three signs requested by Target equals less than 40% of the total square footage Target is allowed by code for one sign, therefore tlle variance requested is not substantial. The proposed logo would be 16 square feet and the caricature of the neighborhood would not be adversely impacted by the logo. The existing lighting of the site is within code and the proposed illuminated logo would not affect the abutting residents. The affects of the government services is a neutral issue other than a health and safety issue pertaining to traffic, the movement of traffic and the logo improving the movement of the traffic. Prior knowledge of the condition, Mr. Rinker did not feel to be significant as parcel E had a history of past litigation and was a very debated and conflicted site. They believe that the request is a reasonable solution to managing the site. Applicants presented alternative signage for the second wa11 sign which was granted a variance the proposed sign was a logo with Target letting and could be used instead of the Pharmacy sign. Mrs. Sergi questioned how many window posters were along the south side of the building and if they were illuminated. N1r. Rinker was not sure as window signs were allowed by City codes. Mr. Schiely thought there was a total of 8 window posters which are backlit and changed seasonally. Mrs. Sergi reviewed that when the Board granted 'the variance for the Pharmacy sign Mr. Kalina was asked which sign was the most important to the site and Mr. Kalina indicated that the west wall sign was the most important not the south, now your client is stating that the south was is the most important. Mr. Kalina stated that the Target representative who was present at the meeting made the statement not hirn. 1VIr. Rinker believed that the record showed that he was forced to make a quick response. He believes that there should not have had to been a choice made. The relationships of the signs are all tied together by quality, type size and elements in relation to the building and the size of the building. VJindow signs are not a consideration under city codes and his client would be allowed to place illuminated window signs in each of the 4 copula windows and would not require a variance. His client is trying to give North Olmsted an upscale architecturally pleasing site and asking for the city to work with 2 of 7