12/02/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections, (1163.12) and (1163.04 H). The motion was seconded by T. Koberna and unanunously approved. Variance Granted. 9. Yummv Kitchen26625 Brookpark Road: Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a sign package. The following variances are requested: 1) An additional wall sign variance for business logo, (code pernuts 1, Applicant requests 2), section (1163.12 A). Note: The applicant is appealing the Building Commissions decision to follow the Architectural Review Boards recommendations to not pernut a logo, Section, (1163.16 D). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1163.12 A), (1163.16 D). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward and reviewed the variance being requested. Ms. Jarvis, with Sign-a-Rama, Ms. Tang, the tenant and Ms. Mar; translator for tenant caine forward to review the request. Mr. Gomersall questioned whether the applicants spoke with the building commissioner regarding the signage, as what the Board requested at the last meeting.. Ms. Jarvis indicated that only two signs would be changed. Mr. Gomersall indicated that the pole sign effects the current request. Ms. 7arvis commented that the pole sign would not be addressed until the results of the litigation is resolved. Mr. Gomersall remarked that the request was not worded properly. The applicant wants a sign on the west side of the building, plus a variance is needed for the logo on the south wall. So there are two request not one. NIr. Koberna questioned what the change would in tell. Ms. 7arvis indicated that there would be a slight change in the wording. The applicants have added two additional words to the existing verbiage. Mr. Gomersall questioned what relationship Ms. Jarvis had to the applicants. Ms. Jarvis commented that she would be doinD the signage. Mr. Koberna questioned if Ms. Jarvis was aware of the sign code. Mr. Koberna questioned if the signs were put in place. Ms. Jarvis indicated that the first sign was put up because the applicants didn't know they needed a perinit. Mr. Koberna questioned the pole sign. 1VIs. Jarvis indicated that the pole sign would not be addressed at all. Ms . Jarvis further commented that only the additional wall sign, letters would be added, not the logo. Ms. 7arvis indicated that any lit sign would help. Mr. Koberna questioned if everyone was in agreement with the corrections. The applicants want to wait on the pole sign. She will be doing a small sign and there will only be a logo on the front sign. He indicated that a pole sign would not help. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that if the pole sign is not chanjed to match the new business, it is then an abandoned sign. Ms. Mar indicated that the business is still a Chinese restaurant. Mr. Rymarczyk commented that it was new owners so the sign needed to be changed. Mr. Gomersall remarked that the applicants should have talked to the Building Commissioner. Ms. Jarvis suggested that Mr. O'Connell indicated the pole sign did not have to be addressed. Mr. Goinersall indicated that the reason it was tabled last time was due to the pole sign. As it wasn't included. Ms. Jarvis reiterated they just wanted the two signs. Mr. Koberna indicated the pole sign is part of the overall signage. Ms. Jarvis suggested that she would blank out the pole sign. Mr. Gareau commented the problem is what are you really trying to accomplish by blanking out the pole sign and it looks worse than if you had Chinese restaurant. The real problem that you have is you are going to keep the sign and that sign has to be calculated with the overall signage, that is how it is determined if you need variance or not, and whether you exceed the square footage allowed. Mr. Gomersall indicated the problem was what was going to be what was done about the pole sign affects the other signs. Mr. Gareau commented that the pole sign would look worse if it were left blank, just put something on it. Mr. Konold suggested the Board Members tell the applicant what needs to be done and see if they will agree. Mr. Gareau indicated that what the moratorium says is that you don't treat it as a wall sign, that the Board would simply 10