04/26/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nunn indicated that they would look at improving the appearance through landscaping and architectural treatments. Mr. Hreha suggested the plantings scheduled to be used should start out with at least 2-years growth when initially planted. Mr. Rymarczyk advised that the plan shows a lot of wall lights, which should be addressed as well as a wall pack that is shown, which requires a full cutoff. If the commission considers the lights on the building decorative lighting then it would not require vaziances. Mr. Yager believed that the accent lights along the building could be hidden a little more or down sized. However, accent lights are a very good complement to the building. The applicants indicated that the building lights were set on timers and come on at dusk and remain on until all workers leave the building. Mr. Koeth asked that the times be called out on the plans and commented that the commission did not want the building glowing. Ms. Nunn advised that she would submit night photos. Mr. Yager requested the locations of each light be shown on the new elevations. Mr. Rymarczyk questioned if in fact the neon "Barbeque to go" sign would be located on an exterior or interior wall. Ms. Nunn stated the "Barbeque to go" sign would be located on an interior wa11 only and it was mistakenly left in the sign packet when it was copied. They are requesting the city allow 3 exterior wall signs due to the location and placement of the building. Mr. Rymarczyk reviewed that the applicants require the following variances: 1). A variance for 3 wall signs on a building as only 1 wall sign is allowed. Requests (2). 3). & 4).) for signs A, B, and C each require a 1-foot 6-inch variance for height exceeding 4-feet. 5). A 112.25 square foot variance for total signage on a building they are allowed 102.25 square feet but show 214.5 square feet. Mr. Yager believed that the physical size of each sign could be decreased, but the location of the building does suggest 3 wall signs were justified. Mr. Bohlmann suggested the main entrance sign rema.in as sized, but decrease the 2 additional signs requested to eliminate two variances and decrease the total square footage requested. Ms. Nunn was not sure if it would be possible to decrease the size of any of the signs, as the size was already decreased at the request of Westfield Mall. She further reviewed that by code they were entitled to a ground sign, but per the lease they were not allowed a ground sign. R. Hreha moved to request the Board of Zoning Appeals grant variance request 1) a variance for 3 signs on a building. W. Spalding seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. R. Koeth moved to recommend the Board of Zoning Appeals deny variance request 2). A 1 foot 6 inch variance for sign higher than code allows (sign A) as written. S. Hoff-Smith seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. R. Koeth moved to recommend the Board of Zoning Appeals grant variance request 3). A 1 foot 6 inch variance for sign higher than code allows (sign B) as written. T. Hreha seconded the motion, roll call on the motion R. Koeth, W. Spalding, T. Hreha, S. Hoff-Smith, R. Bohlmann "yes" and M. Yager "no". Motion Passed R. Koeth moved to recommend the Board of Zoning Appeals deny variance request 4). A 1 foot 6 inch variance for sign higher than code allows (sign C) as written. W. Spalding seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. R. Koeth moved to recommend the Board of Zoning Appeals grant variance request 5). as revised and submitted based upon the commissions previous recommendations of signs B as submitted and signs A& C being decreased in size from 5-foot to 4-feet proportionately. S. Hoff-Smith seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. 8