Laserfiche WebLink
f • <br />, CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS <br />HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS <br />MARCH 26, 2007 <br />1VIINUTES <br />I. ROLL CALL: <br />The meeting was called to order at 7:40 pm <br />PRESENT: Members; M. Diver, J. Burke, N. Sergi, T. Kelly and R. Menser. <br />ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Law Director B. O'Malley, Building Commissioner D. Conway, <br />Asst. Building Commissioner R. Mathews and Clerk of Commissions D. Rote. <br />Chairman Burlce reviewed that there were 6 cases requesting 18 area variances and 1 use variance <br />on the docket. He further advised that each board member had viewed the premises involved for <br />each case. Three votes are required for approval and in addition, each case would be judged on the <br />physical situation peculiar to itself, so that in no way is a judgment rendered considered to be a <br />general policy judgment affecting properties and like situations elsewhere. <br />II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES: . <br />J. Burlce moved to approve the Board of Zoning Appeals minutes dated March 01, 2007 as <br />amended. R. Menser seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. <br />III. RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS: <br />IV. NON=RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS: <br />.1. Citizen Bank; 26777 Lorain Road #1: (WRIi # 4) <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of signage and the following variances are <br />requested: <br />1. A variance for 2 additional wall signs (#7 &#11) on a unit, (code permits 1, applicant shows 3). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section: 1163.27 (A). Note: (1). One (1) wall sign (#8) was <br />issued on a separate permit. Applicant is requesting 2 additional wall signs on this application. <br />(2). One (1) ground sign (#1) was also permitted on a separate permit. (3). BZA tabled 03.01/07. <br />Mr. Dragon with the Sign Company and Mr. Miller with Citizen Bank each came forward to be <br />sworn in and address the request. Mr. Dragon said he and a number of bank marketers visited the <br />site to determine the number of signs truly needed. The rear wall sign is needed to identify the <br />banks rear entrance. The east canopy sign is needed as the new ground sign will be blocked from <br />view by foliage. As they do not own the landscaping they can not alter the plants. The proposed <br />signage is considerably less than what was on the site. Mr. Miller felt decreasing the number of <br />signs any further would limit client's ability to locate the bank. The building is very large, and they <br />are in a limited area which has minimal visibility. <br />Mr. Burlce questioned if the applicants made any changes to their request since their last meeting. <br />Mr. Dragon said no, his client feels what is being requested is needed. He suggested the existing <br />po e sign cou d-have been re aced bul-wrtl-r-the-C-???-Mr: B?zle <br />questioned what the applicants' intent was regarding signs on the ATM machine. Mr. Miller <br />presented a photo of a Citizen Bank ATM machine which had a very large logo which wrapped <br />around two sides and included a bank name and logo along the top of the machine. The letters <br />were 18 inch tall and 4 feet wide. Mr. Conway advised the applicant that both the logo and the <br />Uank wording would be considered signage and would require variances. Mr. Miller showed the <br />?.. ? board a second photo which had the ATM machine red with no verbiage. Mr. Kelly voiced his <br />frustration that the applicants made no attempt to decrease the request and failed to present all <br />1