Laserfiche WebLink
the silo you would not know the restaurant included a working brewery. Mr. Cole said the silo <br />sets the character of the building and the location was chosen as it would be visible from Lorain <br />east bound traffic and Columbia north and south bound traffic. Mrs. Sergi aslced if the silo was a <br />working silo. Mr. Cole said the silo was strictly decorative. Mr. Menser questioned if there was <br />even enough rooin on the lot to place the silo 200 feet away from the north ground sign. Ms. <br />Rudolph questioned which sign was more important the wall sign or the silo. Why isn't the silo <br />attached to the building and how would it be secured. Mr. Siperlce said the silo sign was more <br />important then the wall sign. Mr. Cole said the silo will be anchored into the ground and <br />secured. <br />Mr. Mitchell said there are concerns that the light atop the north ground sign could create safety <br />issues. The building department needs cut sheets on the light as the illumination could spill onto <br />the street or blind people at the intersection if it is too bright. The applicant will need to provide <br />a photometric plan for their lighting. Ms. Rudolph questioned why the silo was a ground sign. <br />Mr. Mitchell the silo is a ground sign because it is not attached to the building. The silo is the <br />mounting structure for the sign which is painted onto the silo therefore it is a design element. <br />Mrs. Sergi asked why two wall signs were allowed. Mr. Mitchell said that due to the business <br />fronting on two streets the building is allowed two wall signs. The applicant chose to lceep the <br />west wall sign and install his second wall sign over the south entrance instead of the north front. <br />Mr. O'Malley after reading the zoning code aloud suggested the board restrict the applicant from <br />being allowed to install a wall sign on the north wall facing Lorain Road as they chose the west <br />wall and south wall for placing the two wall signs they are allowed. It is the burden of the <br />applicant to show why they can not hold to the code. Mrs. Sergi was concerned that although the <br />lot was an odd shape lot and somewhat restrictive there was too much signage along the <br />perimeter of the site. <br />The board felt that the 5 foot variance pertaining to the front ground sign was warranted as it was <br />an existing condition and inoving the sign would place the sign in front of the north doors. Mrs. <br />Sergi said she is concerned the light mounted atop the north ground sign would create a safety <br />hazard. Mr. O'Malley advised the board they could require the light to have full cutoff or low <br />enough wattage to have zero readings at the property line. Ms. Rudolph felt the variances were <br />substantial and the character of the neighborhood was being changed. She preferred the west <br />wall sign be moved if the silo ground sign remain in the proposed location. Mr. Menser said he <br />would prefer just the silo sign on the west side of the building. Mrs. Sergi did not believe the <br />board could restrict the applicant's right to have two wall signs however the board could <br />eliininate the second ground sign. Without wording on the silo it is not a ground sign and would <br />eliminate all but 2 of the variances requested. Mrs. Bellido felt the silo should be moved south <br />as it was a substantial sign. Mrs. Sergi suggested removing the sign from the silo to eliminate <br />the number of variances required. Mr. Menser felt that due to the size and shape of the corner lot <br />two ground signs could not be 200 feet from each other. If the silo was placed 200 feet it would <br />Ue in the driveway and the applicant needs a chance to survive in their chosen location. The <br />variances are not substantial enough. Ms. Rudolph would prefer only one sign on the west side of <br />the lot but understood the applicant was entitled to have 2 wall signs. The silo sign would not <br />malce sense moving or the visibility would be lost so the second ground sign is needed. Mrs. <br />Sergi felt that although the variance for distance between the ground signs was substantial it <br />could not be placed anywhere else due to the shape of the lot. The applicants withdrew a <br />variance and decreased another variance which she appreciated. Mrs. Diver said she did not <br />object to variance request 1 but did object to having 2 ground signs on such a small lot. The <br />variances should be voted on separately and conditions placed on the variances in the motion. <br />5