12/04/2008 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mrs. Sergi, to grant Aldi of 4694 Great Northern Blvd a 2 foot variance for a wall sign higher than code allows; code permits 4', applicant shows 6', section 1163.28 C. Roll call: Sergi, Diver - no, Rudolph, Bellido - yes; motion failed. Third Federal Savings; 26949 Lorain Road: Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of additional ground signs The following variances are requested: 1. A variance for 2 additional ground signs on a lot code permits 1 applicant shows 3 section 1163.27 a. 2. A variance for a ground sign located within 35 foot line of sight triangle; code does not permit applicant shows 2 section 1163.17 a. 3. a variance for ground signs closer than 200 feet apart; code requires 200' applicant shows closer than 200' section 1163.27 a. 4 A 3 foot variance for signs located closer to right of way than code allows; code requires 5' applicant shows 2' section 1163.27 b. Mr. Kalina of Adams Signs was sworn in. Mr. Kalina said the two directional signs are needed to eliininate the near miss accidents taking place at the eastern driveway from vehicles trying to enter the exit only drive. The banlc's customers and employees are complaining. He submitted a meino from the branch manager regarding complaints received. To eliminate the hazard they would lilce to install two directional signs two feet behind the sidewallc to ensure vehicles see the signs in enough time to enter the site properly. He noted four vehicles entered the site through the eastenl drive the day he was on site taking measurements. PDC minutes of November 29, 2006 were read aloud where Mr. Collins suggested installing a directional sign to control traffic although it would require a variance. Although the Commission recommended a do not enter sign be installed at the time of approval the banlc felt it best to wait to see if such a sign was warranted which they have found to be the case. Ms. Rudolph quested if both signs would be installed on either side of the eastern drive facing Lorain and questioned why they did not meet the 5 foot setbaclc required. Mr. Kalina said placement of the signs was to achieve the greatest visibility possible. Photos of the site were submitted to the board inembers to show where the two signs would be placed. Mrs. Sergi aslced how high the signs would be and if the photo presented showed the poles in their proposed locations. Mr. Kalina said the signs would be 8 feet high and both sigils would be 2 feet in from the sidewallc. Mr. Mitchell said the signs must be treated as ground signs though they are needed to control traffic. He requested the board uphold the 5 foot setbaclc required. He would not want a precedent set for installing traffic signs too close to the sidewallc. A 5 foot setback provides the signs sufficient visibility. Mr. O'Malley suggested the board be specific as to what type of sign would be allowed to ensure later tenants do not change sign content. Mrs. Diver felt requiring the signs if allowed to be traffic control signs only and attaching the sign sheet received 11/17/08 to the ininutes would ensure sign content is clear. Mr. O'Malley reviewed the boards options for addressing the variances requested which included the applicant possibility withdrawing the 3 foot variance requested. Mrs. Sergi felt the proposed location of the traffic signs would create safety issues for pedestrian traffic. Mr. Kalina said although he preferred a 2 foot setbaclc he would withdraw the 3 foot variance to follow their request. 4