11/06/2008 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

illuminated if they so chose. Mrs. Bellido felt that due to the Conditional Use permit being granted she did not object to the wall sign however due to the hours of operation the sign doesn't need to be illuminated. Mr. Menser questioned if there were codes which regulate wall sign wattage. Mr. O'Malley did not believe that the code addressed wattage specifically but addressed foot-candle reading requirements at the lot lines. Mrs. Diver felt that as there was a wall sconce just below the sign it didn't need to be illuminated and the lights should be removed from the sign. Mr. O'Malley reiterated the board's right to restrict the wall sign from being illuminated and requesting the lights be removed from the sign. Mrs. Diver felt the business needed visibility however an illuminated sign was not warranted. Mrs. Sergi felt bad for Mr. Meserini having to answer for Fairview Hospital and the Sign Company as the mistakes made were not his. However the sign being illuminated is not warranted. Mr. Mitchell noted that the peimit still needed to be filled out and submitted. Mr. O'Malley advised the board to not address any issues pertaining to permits as the building department would enforce the rules and procedures pertaining to submitting permits. IVIi•s. Diver moved, seconded by 1VIs. Rudolph, to grant Wellington Place of 4800 Clague Road a variance foa- the existing Fairview Hospital wall sign on the building in a residential district dated received September 23, 2008 as amended code does not permit applicant shows 1 which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section 1163.28 conditioned upon the lights being removed fi•om the wall sign to ensure it as not illuminated which was unanimously approved 5-0. Fathead's; 24581 Lorain Road; Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a wall sign The following variance is requested: A 10 inch variance for a wall sign higher than code allows code permits 48" applicant shows 58" which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section 1163.28 C. Note: The sign is on the south elevation and was not identified as requiring a variance previously Mr. Paul Siperke with Fatheads Brewery came forward to be sworn in and address the case. Mr. Siperlce said he returned to address the request for a 10 inch wall sign variance. The size is not substantial nor would it affect the neighborhood. However if denied the variance would create a significant hardship for the owners. The sign was submitted in the original paclcage and when it was approved they ordered the sign which has been made. If the variance is denied a new sign would have to be constructed. The original sign paclcage identified the sign being 58 inches tall so he was not sure why it was not addressed at their last meeting. Mrs. Diver said the sign was shown on the plans of October which were approved and questioned if the sign had not already been approved as part of the sign paclcage. Mr. Mitchell said that when the shop drawings were submitted it was noted that the south wall sign had not been granted a variance which was needed so the applicants were advised they would have to seek a variance for the south wall sign. Mr. O'Malley suggested the board not belabor the oversight but address the request as a new suUinittal. Mr. Mitchell said that the south wall sign is the same size as that which would be on the silo and would not be illuminated. Ms. Rudolph was glad the sign was not illuminated as it faces a residential home. Mrs. Diver questioned why there were still three changeable wall signs on the west side of the building as only one was approved. Mr. Siperlce said that two of the changeable signs would be removed. Mrs. Sergi didn't thinlc it fair to deny the variance when it was presented in the first package which was approved. Board members did not object to the wall sign as long as it was not illuminated and the contingency to never allow a north wall sign was added. 3