06/02/2011 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Carnegie Management representatives John Crook, Joe Khouri and attorney Valerie Tolbert were sworn in. Ms. Tolbert said at the last meeting the board was concerned with second floor signage. However the second floor has yet to be leased and although they would like to be able to address signage without tenants it is impossible to predict the needs of the second floor. Once office tenants are established the board will have the opportunity to address any signage needs they may have. A brief discussion pertaining to prior meeting's minutes ensued. Mr. Gareau advised the board as to how to proceed and reminded the applicant that it was their burden to show just cause as to why the variances should be granted. Ms. Tolbert said what has been submitted is the needs of their two first floor tenants only. Ms. Sergi aslced how Mr. Khouri was able to submit a sign paclcage for the previous buildings which also were not fully rented. Mr. Crook reviewed past variances which were approved noting that Building D was granted a number of variances for the north side of the building. Ms. Diver asked if it was typical for office buildings over one floor to have exterior signage. Mr. Khouri said the building is not a typical office building which has been a challenge to lease. Like Croclcer Parlc the second floor office spaces do have their own signage. Mr. Gareau said administratively a sign package is good to have however nowhere in Chapter 1163 is there a requirement for a sign package. Mr. Lopez said the applicants should be aware that with just two tenants they are exceeding total square footage on a building and should be aware there is no guarantee that the board will grant any further variances in the future. Ms. Tolbert said it is helpful that the board lets her clients lcnow now how they feel about second floor signs. Mr. Lopez said the city is not against commercial development having signs however they are against owners inundating their buildings with signs. Ms. Tolbert said the variances being requested are minimal compared to those the commission already granted Buildings C and D which included signage on the north elevation and is closer to residential property then Building B which was denied. The north sign is not illuminated and is not unattractive in any manner. Their purpose is to let clients lcnow the location once inside the complex. The signs are imperative to both customer and government services. On behalf of the tenant and owner she asked that their request for additional wall signs be granted. Mr. Khouri said as North Olmsted is known for being sign restrictive they worlced hard to minimize what is requested. Building D is 40,000 sq ft and Building B is 30,000 sq ft and they are only asking for two additional wall signs one for the north and one for the east elevation. Mr. Mitchell said the request is minimal for the size and location of the building. The north wall sign is not illuminated and the applicant worked with the planning office to remove and reduce signs prior to going before the board. Mr. Lopez said through his experience in construction and dealing with many cities around the area the City of North Olmsted is very business friendly. Ms. Tolbert agreed that the city is open to businesses and to worlcing with them to find tenants for their office spaces. Ms. Sergi said she did not lcnow why the north sign could not meet code for height. The clerlc asked for clarification if a variance was approved last month did it become null and voided with the reconsideration. Mr. Gareau said a variance already granted would not be up for reconsideration. Board members felt newly submitted documents provided the additional information warranted granting the applicants request.