07/12/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

address the request. Mr. Kouri said he appreciated the time and effort the city and boards and commissions had put into working with them to create a sign package which will benefit not only the city but the tenants as well. Mrs. Sergi questioned why three Carnegie logo signs were necessary. Mr. Kouri reviewed that all their buildings are identified by the Carnegie logo. Mr. Kalina reviewed the location of the logos and showed a photo of the Water Tower Square Carnegie logo to the board members. Mrs. Sergi felt that three owner logos were not necessary. Mr. Kalina felt that the east and west logo provided clarification as to how to access the second floor. Mr. Conway said his professional and personal opinion regarding the applicants sign package is that every large building should be addressed in the same manner. The city sign codes are not equipped to handle large buildings with such high volume of tenants and architectural features such as found at the site. He believes that when sites are so massive with this number of tenants and architectural treatments the signage should be designed working with the applicant, city officials and the Planning & Design Commission to ensure the signage is compatible with the architectural features of the building. If a tenant wishes to have something larger than allowed in the sign criteria they must first petition the landlord, the landlord must then petition the City to change their sign criteria. Mr. 0'Malley reviewed the hard work that not only the applicants but city staff went through in coming 'up with the sign package before the board. He reminded the board that at the request of the BZA a master sign package ordinance was created and passed by not only the BZA but City Council as well. Although the applicant was not bound to follow that ordinance they on their own volunteered to work with the city to create a sign package for their plaza. Carnegie is to be commended in their efforts to control their sites signage prior to the tenants moving signing their leases. Mr. Menser, Mr. Kelly and Ms. Williamson each voiced that they liked the package presented. Mr. Kelly noted that he was glad that the board would not be placed in the middle of the tenants fighting for wall space and it would cutback the number of variances needed. Mrs. Sergi asked for clarification as to which dates were to be followed the received in building July 3, 2007 or the applicants new revision date of June 29, 2007. Mr. Conway stated that the new revision date on the applicant's plans of June 29, 2007 should be followed. N. Sergi moved to approve Parcel E North Olmsted Town Center "BLDG D" their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of a sign package for Bldg "D" and the following variances are granted: 1. A 434.6 square foot variance for excessive signage on a building "Bldg D", (code permits 429 sq ft applicant shows 863.6 sq ft), section (1163.24 (g)). 2. A variance for 2 building identification signs (wall), (code permits 1, applicant shows 3), section (1163.27 (a)). 3. A variance for 2 second floor tenant signs, (code permits 0 applicant shows 2), section (1163.27 (a)). 4. A Variance for 11 additional unit signs (rear of building), (code permits 0, applicant shows 11), section (1163.27 (a)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1163.24 (g)), and (1163.27 (A)). Conditioned upon the adoption of landlord sign criteria and sign plans marked new revisions 6/29/07 and received by building department July 03, 2007. R. Menser seconded the motion which was unanimously 4-0. T. COMMUNICATIONS: • Building Department report for March 2007 8