05/06/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

yard provided that the same is located at the required front building setback of the abutting lot on the side street). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 F 2). The motion was seconded by, J. Maloney and unanimously approved. Variance Granted. 10. Candlewood Hotel; 24741 Country Club Blvd.: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a sign package. The following variances are requested: 1) A 54.square foot variance for business use signage, (Code permits 306.sq ft, applicant request 370.5sq ft), (1163.11 A). 2) A 93.5 square foot variance for business building signage, (Code permits 223.sq ft applicant request 316.5 sq ft), (1163.11 B). 3) A variance to install wall signs # 2 and #3, (Code permits 1 applicant requests 3),(1163.12 A). 4) Sign 42, a 45.75 square foot variance for wall signage, (Code permits max. 75sq ft applicant requests 120.75sq ft), (1163.12 A). 5) Sign #2 a 1.3'foot height variance, (Code permits 4'ft applicant requests 5.3'foot),(1163.12 A) 6) Sign #3, a 2" inch height variance, (Code permits 4'ft applicant requests 4.2'ft), (1163.12 A). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1163.11 A) and (1163.12 A). Note: 42 wall sign originally approved for the east elevation, it was installed on the west elevation. Therefore it is treated as a new sign due to the fact that it was improperly installed, and without permission. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward and reviewed the variances being requested. Mr. Osterlund, with Candlewood Hotel, and Mr. Wagner, from Wagner Sign company, came forward to present their proposal. Mr. Gomersall asked if there was anyone present from Luminous Neon Signs. Mr. Osterlund explained that luminous Neon Sign company was only hired to erect the signs. Mr. Gomersall commented that Neon Sign company indeed erected the signs and without variances. Mr. Koberna reviewed that when Candlewood presented their initial proposal he thought the sign package was the best he had ever seen, and asked what happened. Mr. Wagner indicated that, neither Mr. Osterlund nor himself were present for the original meetings or original sign package. He indicated that luminous Neon Signs was the national sign vendor for Candlewood suites. His company was contracted to be their local sign representative to erect the signs. NIr. Gomersall asked if Wagner Sign company erected the sign. Mr. Wagner indicated his company indeed put the sign on the wrong wall. He suggested he was informed that the sign proposal that was approved called for a sign on the north elevation as well as the west. He suggested it wasn't until Candlewood wanted to add an east wall sign, that the mistake was caught. During conversation with Mr. O'Connell he came to realize that only a sign for the North and East elevation had been approved. N1r. Wagner suggested the applicant is looking for a way to simplify the problem. The applicants would like to be allowed to have the west wall sign remain and be granted a variance for it. He :further indicated the applicants would like to erect the East wall sign, which was originally approved. The East wall sign was granted a variance when the hotel first came to the Board of Zoning Appeals rneetings. Mr. Koberna suggested he didn't think the normal traffic flow would be able to see the sign. He felt that a sign on the east wall was not needed, the applicants have other wall signs as well as aground sign. Mr. Wagner suggested Candlewood needed visibility from traffic traveling west on highway 480. He indicated the original application was for the east elevation. When the request came to his company, he was requested to erect the sign on the west elevation. Mr. Gomersall indicated there would be three signs on the building and he was not sure that many signs were needed. Mr. Wagner suggested any one sign would only be visible one at a time depending on which direction the vehicle was traveling. Mr. Gareau inquired as to how 6