Laserfiche WebLink
1VIs. Rudolph moved, seconded by 1VIrs. Sergi, to table Halleen HIA of 27726 Lorain Road <br />until the May 7, 2009 meeting when the owner can be present which was unanimously <br />approved 4-0. <br />Carter Plaz1; 24747 Lorain Road <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists replacing non-conforming pole sign with a <br />new grotmd sign. The following variances are required: <br />1. A variance for a second ground sign on a lot; code peimits 1, applicant shows 2, section <br />1163.27(a). <br />2. A 20 foot variance for ground signs too close to each other; code requires 200 ft, applicant <br />shows 180 ft, section 1163.27(a). , <br />3. A 174 square foot variance for total signage on a lot; code permits 385 sq ft, applicant shows <br />559 sq ft, section 1163.25(a). <br />Mi•. Carter, owner; Mr. Listati, attorney; and Mr. Melbourne, Boyer Signs were sworn in. Mr. <br />Melbourne reviewed the variance requests. The new ground sign will match the existing ground <br />sign and the izon-conforming pole sign will be removed. The west ground sign will house baclc <br />tenant signs and the east ground sign will house front tenant signs. Both ground siglls are double <br />faced internally illuminated and are positioned based upon the existing entrance island drives. <br />Each tenant sign will be the same size; text style, shape and color may differ. Ms. Rudolph <br />questioned if the existing tenant's wall signs would be replaced to meet the new sign paclcage or <br />would the sign paclcage be enforced as new tenants enter the plaza. Mr. Carter said that wall <br />signs would meet the paclcage requirements from this day forward. Mrs. Diver questioned the <br />size of the non-conforming sign being removed compared to the proposed ground sign. Mr. <br />Melbounle said he was not sure of the sign face area of the pole sign but the new sign would <br />match the existing conforming ground sign. <br />Mrs. Sergi aslced if the total square footage for the lot was based on the frontage of the lot. Mr. <br />Mitchell said frontage is measured at the street therefore rear buildings do not have frontage due <br />to the layout. Mrs. Sergi was pleased that a master sign paclcage was being submitted. Ms. <br />Rudolph aslced if the base of the ground sign was part of the square footage calculation. Mr. <br />Mitchell said that the calculations include the base of both ground signs and all wall signs in the <br />total square footage. Mr. Melbourne confirmed that all signs were included in the total square <br />footage submitted. <br />Discussion ensued pertaining to the height and placement of the new ground sign possibly being <br />a safety hazard to delivery trucks maneuvering the site. Mr. Carter said that the existing ground <br />sign which is the same size as the proposed sign had not endured any damage and he had <br />property insurance to cover the ground signs if something did happen. The ground signs are one <br />foot in from the edge of the island curbs so the curbs would be hit before the signs. Placement is <br />in accordance to code but if the city would prefer the signs be moved north they would move <br />them closer to Lorain Road. Mr. Mitchell said the building deparhnent would prefer the sign be <br />placed in accordance to code and asked that when pulling the perinit an accurate dimensional <br />plan Ue submitted.