03/26/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

S 1 . signage at once. Mr. Dragon said the bank would keep the existing pole sign if the wall signs were ? not granted. Mr. Burke commented that the first photo shown was the reason the board tabled the ? issue and advised that the board did not want any wording on the ATM machine. Mr. Menser did not object to the request due to the amount of signage being removed from the site. Mr. Burke reminded the applicant the board was open to a rear wall sign but not the request to have a sign on the east canopy. Mrs. Sergi asked if Mr. Miller would commit to painting the ATM machine red and not request signage for the ATM machine. Mr. Miller said he would not seek variances for the ATM signs. Mrs. Sergi questioned if the applicants wanted to amend their request. Mrs. Sergi felt the request was substantial- it is double what is allowed. The board appreciates the non-conforming pole sign being removed. Mrs. Diver voiced her frustration with the applicanYs unwillingness to work with the board and in fact threatening the board if the variance is not granted. Mr. Burke reviewed the boards March lst comments and recommendations and incorporated those comments and recommendations by reference to the present hearing. Mr. Burke then questioned if the bank wished to proceed as written. Mr. Miller requested to proceed as written. N. Sergi moved to approve Citizen Bank of 26777 Lorain Road their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of signage and the following variance, is granted: A variance for 2 additional wall signs (#7 &#11) on a unit, (code permits 1, applicant shows 3). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section: 1163.27 (A). The variance is contingent upon the non- conforming pole sign being replaced with new conforming ground sign. The Bank may not seek any other sign variances and there will be no signs on the ATM machine. R. Menser seconded roll call on the motion; J. Burke, M. Diver, T. Kelly N. Sergi no and R. Menser, yes. Variance Denied. 2. Parcel E N. Olmsted Town Center "BLDG C" (WRD # 4) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of sign package for Bldg "C" and the (?? ?,? ? following variances are requested: 1. A 168.7 foot variance for excessive signage on a building "Bldg C", (code permits 163.3 sq ft, applicant shows 332 sq ft) section 1163.24 (B). 2. A 4.3 sq ft variance for excessive square footage of signage on a unit (Fatburger tenant 2), (code permits 77.7 sq ft, applicant shows 82 sq ft) section 1163.24 (C). 3. A variance for 1 additional wall sign on a unit (Fatburger signs c2 & c3), (code permits 1 applicant shows 2) section 1163.27 (A). 4. A 1 foot variance for height of sign (Lazboy sign c5), (code permits 4 ft, applicant shows 5') section 1163.27 (C). 5. A variance for 1 additional wall sign on a unit (Lazboy signs cl & c5), (code permits 1 applicant shows 2) section 1163.27 (A). 6. An 81 square foot variance for excessive square footage of signage on a unit (Lazboy tenant #1), (code permits 119 sq ft, applicant shows 200 sq ft), section (1163.24 (C)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections: (1163.24 (B)), (1163.24 (C)), (1163.27 (A)), (116127 (C)). n-ior +o +he ?„?Py??ncxIas?b_i?g_ad&-P_ssed s Diver excnsPri herself from the discussion. Mr. Kalina with Adam signs, Mr. Khouri with the Management Company, Mr. Skoulis the President of the Homeowners Association and Mr. Kuson a neighbor, each came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Kalina said he was present to review the sign package for building C only. The owners have worked with both the Building Commissioner and Planning Director to develop the sign criteria for tenants to follow. He suggested the board should have received an elevation plan reflecting the building signs. Once a criteria package is approved it will be incorporated into the leasing contract to control site signage. Mr. Conway voiced that his goal in working with the applicant was to have a sign criteria so his department would have more 2