03/11/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

on the shed itself nor does the application list a contractor. Mr. Dranuslci said he and his coworlcers would be building the shed which would aesthetically match the house as he is using the same siding and roofing materials on the home. Mrs. Sergi aslced how far the shed would be from the edge of the porch and Mr. Mitchell said it would be 25 feet from the house. Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mr. Lopez, to grant Michael Dranuski of 23622 Stoneybrook Drive his request for variance, which consists of a 40 square foot variance for a storage shed larger than allowed; code permits 80 sq ft, applicant show 120 sq ft, section 1135.02(d)(1) which was approved 5-0. NON-RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUEST'S CMS10-05 Dunkin Donuts; 26963 Lorain Road: Request for variance (1123.12); proposal consists of signage. The following variances are requested: 1. A variance for a ground sign located within the right of way setbaclc; code requires 5', applicant shows 0', section 1163.27(b). 2. A 1 foot 4 inch variance for a wall sign too close to another sigli; code requires 2 feet; applicant shows 8 inches; section 1163.28(d). Note: Two existing directional signs to remain in addition to the new monument sign. Both existing directional signs are located within the 35 foot triangle. Mr. Selcaniclc was sworn in and said the two variances requested are part of an exterior renovation which includes new signage. The two wail signs are needed as there are two businesses within the building. The building fronts two streets so they are allowed two wall signs; however the west elevation can not accommodate a sign nor would it be visible to vehicles traveling east or west. The newly designed entrance will house the two signs which are stacked 8 inches apart instead of 2 feet. The new entrance is designed to define the only point of entry to the building. The variance for the ground sign is for setbaclc from the right of way. It will be closer to the property line to ensure vehicles do not damage the sign. The briclc base will be 3 feet high and the sign will Ue 6 feet high and although the size of the sign meets code its location does not. The sign can not be installed to code due to the restrictive nature of the small irregular size lot. Other locations would not be suitable. Mr. Lopez asked why the 2-foot space could not be accommodated and Mr. Selcanick said if the 2-foot space was met it would raise the top sign higher on the parapet and eliminate the gooseneck light which highlights the entrance. Mr. Mitchell said the site is allowed two wall signs and stacking the two signs on the front elevation is preferred to ensure the applicants do not return to request a second wall sign later. The proposed location for the ground sign is the best location however he would be more comfortable if the sign was 6 inches away from the sidewallc. Mr. Lopez said that unless the curb cut is an entrance only it will obstruct vehicles line of sight. Ms. Rudolph aslced what the frontage was and Mr. Mitchell said it was about 44 feet. Mrs. Diver aslced if the applicant was willing to move the ground sign inward 1 foot. Mr. Sekaniclc said they could move the sign in 6 to 8 inches at best as the sign is a standard sign for the franchise and there will be a landscape bed around the sign. Ms Rudolph asked why more variances were not required for the, setbaclc and directional signs. Mr. Mitchell said the setback and directional signs were previously 2