09/06/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. Chick-Fil-A; 4777 Great Northern Blvd. (W12D # 4): Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of additional signage. The following variances are requested: 1. A variance for 3 additional wall sings on a building (one sign exists), (code permits 1, applicant shows 4), section (1163.27 (a)). 2. An 85.93 square foot variance for excess squaxe footage of signage on a building, (code permits 46.75 sq ft, applicant shows 132.68 sq ft), section (1163.24 (B)). 3. A 20.88 square foot variance for excess signage on a lot (includes existing signs), (code permits 235 sq ft, applicant shows 255.88 sq ft), section (1163.24 (a)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1163.24 (a)) (1163.24 (b)) and (1163.27 (a)). Note: Existing wall sign "B" = 33.17 sq' Proposed sign "C" = 33.17 sq' Proposed sign "D" = 33.17 sq' Proposed sign "E" = 33.17 sq' Total proposed on Bldg 132.68 sq' - 46.75 sq' allowed on building 85.93 sq' variance required Representatives: Mr. Holiday the Vice President of Clayton Signs and Mr. Patton with Chick- Fil-A` each came forward to be sworn in and address the case. Prior to the start of the meeting Mr. Holiday submitted new sign packages for board members. Mr: Holiday reviewed the existing sign and advised that the additional 3 signs being requested were the same size. The applicants believe that a total of 4 wall signs are needed to give their site tlie visibility they need. Photos were presented which showed that neighboring buildings and abutting signs blocked the main west wall sign and ground sign. The applicant noted that their typical wall sign was larger then the existing wall sign. It was suggested that the Chick-Fil- A business is 80% spontaneous stops for customers and visibility is essential to their survival. Once the rear (east) neighUoring development is completed there will be access through the (east) neighboring site and a rear wall sign needed. Applicants reviewed the location was a retail corridor and their sign package was installed to code however since the opening they have realized one wall sign is not enough. They believe that the business is economically affected by the lack of visibility the site has as well as the limited accessibility. Mr. Patton has worlced out access with the east neighbor and has tried to work with the north neighbor (Randall House) but they are unwilling to tallc although he will continue to try to work something out. The North Olmsfed site is the first free standing site they have in Cleveland and if successful they will continue to expand throughout the area at the rate of three new sites a year. Applicants noted otlier restaurants in the area which had more than one wall sign and asked that they be granted tlzeir signs. The building commissioner felt 4 wall signs were excessive and the owners lcnew the Goodyear building was on the same lot when the lot was developed. There are also many businesses in the area with one wall sign as well and are doing fine. The city codes do not allow wall signs on a114 sides of a building. Mrs. Diver closed testimony so the board could deliberate. Mr. Kelly felt 4 wall signs were excessive it would be one thing to have an additional wall sign but 3 additional signs are not warranted. Mrs. Diver reviewed that the board was working on keeping the number of wall signs in the city to a minimum. Mr. Menser felt that a wall sign (K or D) on the north side of the building was warranted. Mrs. Sergi felt the east/rear (L or E) wall sign was warranted for visibility but felt it could be misleading as there is no rear access to the site. Ms. Williamson felt the south (J or C) wall sign was warranted as it would give visibility from both Brookpark and Great Northern roads. Mrs. Sergi questioned if the applicants loolced into installing a highway 4