08/09/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Wenger said that this proposal was a referral from the Board of Zoning Appeals, who addressed signage variance requests in June. The Board felt that there was an aesthetic element to the signage which needed approval from the Planning and Design Commission and that the Commission could also make recommendations to variances requested. Mr. O'Malley said the BZA is accustomed to receiving the Commission's recommendations on variances. Not all storefronts are subject to a review however the Board has been scrutinizing and questioning why signage cannot be done within the code. Mr. Belknap, the applicant's sign representative, said that new plans were submitted since the BZA meeting, which has reduced the square footage. Mr. Lasko said that the original packet that went to the BZA was for two variance requests-one for total square footage, one for the height of the sign. Ms. Wenger stated that the current request is for a variance of 31.6 square footage for excessive signage on the building, based upon the Building Department's write up. Mr. Belknap stated that the back and front sign have been reduced, the front sign has been reduced to 37.7 square feet compared with the original 78 square feet, which was twice the size permitted, the Florentine swish from the logo was dropped, reducing the square footage. Ms. Wenger saw discrepancies between the applicant's presentation and the Building Department write up, as she noted Building's includes three signs. The area includes a front sign of 87 square feet, rear wa11 sign of 44 square feet, and a canopy sign of 12 square feet. The total is 143.5 square feet, which would make the request for a 31.5 square foot variance. Mr. Yager clarified the sign dimensions and said the third sign on the canopy makes the dimensions exceed the code. Ivdr. Yager suggested that by removing the sign on the canopy would eliminate the need for a variance. Mr. Belknap stated that the logo would be on the skirt of the canopy, which he understood to be the only area considered part to the signage. Mr. Yager questioned whether they needed the sign on the side of the building. Mr. Belknap stated that the side entrance lends itself to having a sign. It is also a non-illuminated awning, so the entire awning is not included. Mr. Yager also suggested making the back sign smaller to reduce the total footage and keep the awning sign. Mr. Belknap brought a sample of the purple color for the Commission to review. Mr. Lasko asked if there was additional work being done to the building. Mr. Khouri said that the building has been cleaned. Mr. Yager asked if the remnants of the previous sign background have been removed. Mr. Yager also specified that they improve the landscaping. Mr. Malone stated that he had visited the site, and that the exterior looked better than in the photo. Ms Wenger stated that there was no approval needed for the proposal, just a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding the variance requests. Mr. Bohlmann asked the applicant to look at the parking lot area and curb around the flower beds as well as examine the sidewalk. Mr. Khouri stated existing surfaces have been maintained, that it had been seal coated recently. Mr. Bohlmann recommended that they review the parking lot and upgrade any structural issues. Both Mr. Belknap and Mr. Khouri will advise the client to consider remaining within the code to eliminate the need for sign variances. 1VIr. Lasko moved to recoxnffiend to the Board of Zonfng Appeals that the signage for the proposal of Family Christian, at 26127 Lorain Road, conform to tbe City's Zoning Code, such tfiat nm variamces are requared. Tbe motion was seconded by Mr. Sohlmann, which vvas unanimously approvedo 2