09/07/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? Mr. O'Malley advised that he did not believe that the Planning & Design Commission had reviewed the sign package for the site. However Mr. Kalina prior to the start of the meeting advised that the Planning & Design Commission had in fact approved the sign package, however there has been no recommendations forwarded from Planning. Location, placement and the affect of traffic flow are items for Planning & Design to review and then forwarded to the Board of Zoning Appeals with recommendations. He is not sure why the applicant has chosen not to submit a sign package for the entire site for Planning & Design Commissions review. Mr. Kalina stated that the building and entire site plan was already approved by the Planning Commission and Council otherwise the building would not be built. Mr. O'Malley advised that if in fact a sign package for the entire site was previously approved then they would not be before the board seeking variances. Therefore he recommended that board forward the applicant to the Planning & Design Commission for their recommendations. Mr. Kalina again suggested that all the signs being presented to the board were in fact shown on the plans when the development went before the Planning Commission. Mr. Ryrnarczyk believed that there may have been a directional and monument sign called out on the original plans however there were no details or discussions pertaining to signage. The board agreed that the Planning & Design Commission should review the sign package for the entire site and make their recommendations to the board before the board address possible variances. Mr. Kalina voiced a frustration that when the application was submitted to the Building Department they were not advised they should go before the Flanning & Design Commission first for their review. Mr. Rymarczyk advised the applicant that it was up to his client (Ganley) to advise him of were they are in the review process not the Building Departments. Mrs. Diver advised that Ganley signage would be forwarded to the Planning & Design Commission for recommendations on a sign package however residents present would be given the opportunity to speak. Mr. Bruehler said that Ganley had a habit of doing what ever they wanted to do without permission until complaints are filed. They destroyed trees along his property without his permission and he had to file a police report. He tried to talk to Ganley about the trees that were removed frorn his yard and they have refused to meet with him. The fence along the back was to be green and they installed a white fence instead of what was approved. Asphalt was being poured until 3:00 am in the morning until police were called out. He is against any variances for signs and does not believe that there should be a service sign as any sign which is illuminated would create higher readings then zero at the lot lines which are required by code. There is only one service door along the west side so no sign should be needed. N. Sergi naoved to send Ganley VW of 25580 Y.,orain itoad to the Planning & Design Comffiission for their revaew and comffients. M. Dieer seconded the ffiotion, which was unanamously approved. V. COI'lMUNICATIOle1S: Building Department reports for June & July 2006. VI. ADJOLT12NMENT: With no further business pending Chairwoman Diver adjourned the meeting at 9:30 pm. ?Iaureen Diver, Vice Chairman Clerk of Commissions 6