Laserfiche WebLink
l/ . 4 <br />Note: The height variance is for the Mercedes logo located on the east end of the south elevation. <br />All sign dimensions were scaled as no dimensions were called out on drawings. <br />Mr. Mann with Mann Architects was present to be sworn in and address the request. A brief <br />discussion ensured as to whether or not the architect could present the case without the owner <br />being present. Mr. Mann reviewed that the plan was presented to the PDC a week earlier and it <br />was brought to their attention that they would require a variance for two wall signs and a front <br />setback. The proposed new entrance showed the blue entry,; bumped out. However the blue <br />entrance will be flush with the existing building therefore they will not require a special permit <br />or the setback variance. The two signs shown are existing signs being moved to the site <br />temporarily until the new showrooms are completed. They agreed to remove the existing ground <br />sign for a favorable recommendation from the Planning & Design Commission. New drawings <br />were submitted for review showing the flush entrance and the location of the two wall signs. <br />Mr. Conway wanted clarity that the new entrance would be flush with the existing building and <br />to existing signs were temporarily being moved to the site. Mr. Mann assured the board that the <br />entrance would be flush and the signs would be temporar,y until the new showrooms are <br />completed. Mr. Conway questioned the length of time the signs would be on the new location. <br />He requested a projected date of removal. Mr. Mann believed that the signs would only be <br />needed for 6 to 9 months at the most. Mr. Conway said he had no objections to the applicants <br />using existing signs temporarily on the building until the main site is completed. However he <br />requested that the board place a stipulation on the request that the signs would be removed within <br />60 days of occupancy of the main site. <br />Mr. O'Malley advised that the applicant's willingness to remove the existing ground sign is an <br />option they discussed with PDC and he did not recommend the board compel the applicant to <br />remove the ground sign to receive a favorable outcome. Board members had no objections to the <br />temporary use of the existing signs on the building. <br />Mr. Menser moved seconded by Mrs. Sergi to grant COIVIS07-0028: Ml Realty LLC of <br />28300 Lorain Road their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of signage and the <br />following variances are granted: <br />1. A variance for 1 additional wall sign on a building, (code permits 1, applicant shows 2), <br />section (1163.27 (A)). <br />2. A 1.5 foot variance for a wall sign higher than allowed, (code permits 4', applicant <br />shows 5.51), section (1163.27 (C)). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1163.27 (A)) and (1163.27 (C)). The variances <br />are granted temporarily and the wall signs will be removed within 60 days of the grand <br />reopening of the main site which was unanimously appro,ved 4-0. The clerk provided Mr. <br />Mann a copy of the lot split and consolidation plat showing the proper property lines as <br />promised. <br />COMMUNICATIONS <br />Mr. Conway requested the board be consistent as to who can represent an owner at the hearings <br />and have the clerk add the stipulation to the application forms. Mr. O'Malley advised all board <br />members to refrain from speaking with applicants wlien they go to the sites as it could place the <br />board members in an awkward potion. " <br />5