10/01/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. A variance for adding to a non-conforming ground sign (Brookpark Rd); codes does not permit, applicant shows addition section 1163.10 a, 5. A variance for adding to a non-conforming ground sign (Lorain Rd); code does not permit, applicant shows addition section 1163.10 a. Note: Property owners consent has not been submitted. A site plan is required to show distance between ground signs code calls for 200 feet minimum. Mr. Tadd Androsik, Mr. Patrick Androsik, and Mr. Skip Collins were sworn in. Mr. Collins said the total number of signs shown match what was allowed for the previous tenants and the square footage for all signs is less. They are allowed one wall sign 56 square feet and they would like to have an 80.95 square foot wall sign. The business location has low visibility although it is right on the roadway. His clients asked to have the landscaping trimmed back or removed and the city forester denied the requests. They would also like to have recognition on the two existing monument signs. If added to the existing monument signs they would withdraw the request for an additional ground sign. Ms. Rudolph asked why the applicants needed a wall sign on the east elevation which faces another building and Mr. Collins said it is the main entrance to the facility and the south elevation is needed due to the east sign having limited visibility. The building signs will only say Five Guys and the monument signs would read Five Guys Burgers and Fries. Ms. Rudolph questioned the height of the wall signs lettering and Mr. Collins said the letters are 24 inches on both wall signs. Mr. Mitchell said the amount of signage on the building is significant recognizing the size of the unit only warrants one wa11 sign. The third ground sign is not warranted and although the last tenant received three wall signs, the request is excessive. The south elevation does not have an entrance and the existing non-conforming monument signs would work but they are non- conforming signs. If the board looked to allow the Lorain Road monument sign it should be flush under the Office Max wording. Mr. Sullivan noted that if the sign was flush under the Office Max sign it would be 6 inches deeper due to the existing framing. Mrs. Sergi asked why the south elevation was not considered frontage as it faced Brookpark Road and Mr. Mitchell said he would prefer the board address the variances as written. Mr. O'Malley reminded the board that the city was vigorously trying to eliminate non-conforming pole/ground signs throughout the city and the landlord has chosen to not address the issue by having their tenant apply and address the city. The city has discouraged non-conforming pole/monument sign being added to or expanded. He strongly recommends the board table the matter in the landlord's absence or deny the requests to add to non-conforming signs. Ms. Rudolph questioned if the board could table sections of the request of were they required to address everything at once and Mr. O'Malley said it was the board's discretion. Ms. Rudolph said she would prefer the board only address wall signs and make the landlord return to address non-conforming signs. The applicants were asked how they wanted to proceed and Mr. Sullivan said they would withdraw the requests to add to the non-conforming ground signs and would like to bring back the request for a ground sign along Lorain Road. Ms. Rudolph said if there is a wall sign on the north elevation then a ground sign is not warranted on the north elevation. A brief discussion ensued regarding the nuxnber ground signs on a lot and the applicant chose to withdraw all requests pertaining to ground signs. Ms. Rudolph said as the applicants would have no other signage on the site then wall signs on their building she felt three wall signs were warranted. All