03/01/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, Mrs. Sergi questioned why two additional wall signs were required. Mr. Dragon reviewed that the ? size of the building was quite large and due to the size of the building and the fact that most of the parking is in the rear of the building a sign is needed to identify the banks rear entrance. The east canopy sign is to replace what is there and to give exposure to the east. Mrs. Sergi felt that the ground sign provided visibility for both the east and west areas as the double sided ground sign verbiage faced east & west and included ATM wording as well. She felt the rear wall sign was warranted but did not feel the east canopy wall sign was warranted. She suggested voting on each wall sign requested separately. Mrs. Diver voiced her agreement with Mrs. Sergi. Mr. O'Malley advised that it was within the board's right to vote on each wall sign separately as well as place certain conditions or restrictions prohibiting non-integral stickers on the ATM machine. The board can also instruct the applicant to let his clients know that the board is not open to addressing signs sections at a time. Mr. Kelly liked that the ground sign was to code and appreciated the fact that only the letters would be illuminated not the entire signs. Mr. Burke advised the applicant that he had heard the boards concerns and asked how he wanted to proceed. Mr. Dragon stated that his clients did not want to lose any more signs, the new signs are smaller than what is currently there and they are not asking for much. The rear sign letters are only 8 inches tall and will not be visible from the street. Mr. Menser voiced he had no objections to the two additional wall signs but would obj ect to any signage on an ATM machine. Board members felt the property could yield a reasonable return without a variance. The variance being requested is substantial. The character of the neighborhood may or may not affect the neighborhood as it is a retail area. Government services would not be affected. The owner purchased the property with knowledge of the restrictions. The property owner's predicament can be resolved without a variance. Mr. O'Malley commended the applicant for his presentation and reviewed for the applicant his options for proceeding as it was clear that the board was not looking favorably at granting the variance as written. Options: A). proceed as written. B). amend the request. C). ask to be tabled so the matter can be rethought and the owners can return with the applicant. Mr. Burke asked the applicant how he would like to proceed. Mr. Dragon asked the board to table the matter until the next meeting. N. Sergi moved to table Citizen Bank of 26777 Lorain Road #1 their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of signage until meeting next. M. I)iver seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. V. COMIMUNICATIONS: J. Burke moved to cancel the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting dated Apri15, 2007. M. Diver seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. J. Burke moved to call a special Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for 10'Iarch 26, 2007. M. Diver seconded the xnotion, which was unanimously approved. VI. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business pending R. Menser adjourned the meeting at 8:30 pm. 4