11/03/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

them in achieving that goal. The code addresses health and safety issues and having an identifier along the south side of the building is preventing possible traff c problems. Mr. Schiely reviewed that the proposed landscaping along Brookpark Road had not been installed which was also a consideration to the placement of the logo because if it is placed to low the landscaping would block the logo. Mr. Kremzar questioned why the logo needed to be illuminated as the walls are backlit. Applicants felt that the effectiveness of the logo would be lost if not illuminated. Mr. Conway believed that the applicant's argment was sufficient due to the large size of the building and the difficulty of visibility created by the placement of the future buildings. Mr. Kelly questioned if the board allowed the 4-foot logo to be placed at the south west corner of the building the applicants would have no fiuther needs for any future wall signs or additional window signs. Mr. Rinker a.nd Mr. Schiely both advised that there would be no future needs if the 4-foot logo was allowed. Mr. O'Ma11ey advised that the Building department was cracking down on window signage, banners, portable outdoor advertisements and other outdoor displays and it was within the rights of the board to request Tazget waive their rights to temporary signs in lieu of being granted the south west wall -sign. W. Kremzar moved to go into caucus to deliberate. T. Kelly seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. N. Sergi Nioved to return form caucus. W. Kremzar seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. W. Kremzar moved to approve Target/Sign Lite of 24646 Brookpark Road thenr request for variance as amended: (1123.12), which consist of a new wall signs and that the following variance is granted: 1. A variance for 3 wall signs on a building, (code permits 1, applicant shows 3) (4-foot bulls-eye on south elevation). Which is an violataon of Ord. 90-125 section (1163.27 A). Contingent upon no additional wall signs, banner signs, temporary signs, sandwicb boards, billboards, window sale signs or lawn signs be used or requestesl. J. Maloney seconded the motion, roll call on the motion; J. Maloney, W. Kremzar, T. Kelly, "yes", N. Sergi "no" and M. Diver abstained, motioned passed. During Roll call of the mation: N. Sergi did not feel that the evidence presented support the 7 standards and the predicament presented by the applicants was self imposed as they chose the location of the entrance and wa11 sign. T. Kelly agreed with Mrs. Sergi regazding the applicants creating their own predicament but also understand the need for the sign along Brookpark road. However, he advised the applicants that for the record the 3 remaining buildings to be constructed would be looked at very closely by the board and if any further variance requests are required for the site a11 7 requirements must be clearly shown or there would be no consideration. During the motion Mr. Rinker asked for clarification on interior window signs which are allowed by code. Mr. Kremzar clarified that there was to be no window signs in the copulas. Mr. Schiely advised that interior window photos along the west and south sides are not advertisements but photos to present a pedestrian type atmosphere only. Ms. Brosch a resident ca.me forward to be sworn in and address the board. Ms. Brosch believed that the board was giving the applACant special treatment and believed that it would trigger Wa1-Mart to apply for more wall signs. • Harrv Buffalo; 470 Great Northern Mall: (VVId.D 4) Request for varia.nce (1123.12). The proposal consists of a 2nd wall sign. The following variances are requested: . 3 of 7