06/07/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

present the pylon sign. Mr. Olson indicated that they went to the Architectural Review Board and took in all of their comments. They've continued to work with the neighbors in resolving the issues related to the properties adjacent to them in the rear. Some of the most recent comments they've incorporated is more landscaping. It is not yet shown on the plan, but the next generation of this plan will depict more landscaping. The additional landscaping will be throughout the parking lot and there will be more landscaping to help the buffer along Brookpark Ext. What they want to do tonight is present the revised pylon sign. They took the boards comments into consideration from the last meeting. They showed the board the original 30 ft. high pylon sign. They redesigned it so it has come down ten (10) ft. in height. They have repositioned the sign, so it is not a direct east west relation, it's now more at an angle. This does a couple of things, it allows it to be picked up from view on Brookpark and it also has less of an impact, if any, to the neighbors. They increased the height of the fencing from 6 ft. to 8 ft. Mr. Maloney commented that they did a?pretty good job of reducing it from 30 ft. Mr. Kelley questioned how much wider this sign is than the old one. Mr. Crook replied that it is only one foot wider. Mr. Koberna indicated that they had an issue of resolving the other tenants at the last meeting. Mr. Olson commented that on the building signs, the tenant would have to go through Tops approval process before it came to tlie City. Mr. Koberna indicated that the panels were in question. If XYZ company were to come in, would that be courited as square footage for your variance, or would that be handled as a separate entity for each individual tenant as they came into your store. Mr. Crook commented that he thinks tfie way it was calculated was basically this sign and this retail square. Mr. Koberna questioned if the whole thing was part of the square footage. Mr. Crook replied right. If they had six tenants they could not increase over this retail square area. Mr. Maloney indicated that the out parcel building would also have to come through Tops before the City. Mr. Olson replied absolutely. Mr. Conway questioned if they would be located on this pylon sign also. Mr. Olson replied that ultimately they could be one of the four or five tenants on that sign. Mr. Conway replied then I don't know why we need four tenants of they're not part of this package. Mr. Olson replied they are not approving the number of tenants, they're approving the square footage. Mr. Conway indicated then you don't need the square footage. Mr. Koberna commented that was what he was trying to get at. Mr. Conway indicated that square footage is far too big if they're only going to have one tenant in there. Now if they're making a proposal that you might have three there and a fourth in an out lot and we got four different sign panels, he can see the argument. He wouldn't advise the board not to consider the other signs because you could end up with one tenant on that whole square area, which is far too massive. Mr. Koberna indicated that the main building is already set up for additional tenants. Mr. Conway indicated that it could be one tenant or it could be three. Mr. Koberna replied, it depends, right. Mr. Conway commented if there is four separate tenants and they all go on that sign and we don't have another ground sign on the site then their argument makes sense. If it doesn't, and the board passes this, they can do anything they want with that if they got one tenant. Mr. Konold questioned how many tenants they plan on having. Mr. Olson replied four would be a very realistic number. Mr. Koberna questioned the square footage of what they would be leasing out. Mr. Olson replied that it is roughly 21,000 square feet of retail space. Mr. Conway questioned what the frontage was. Mr. Olson replied about 180 or 190 ft. Mr. Conway questioned what the square footage of each individual panel was. Mr. Crook replied a little less than 10 sq. ft. for each panel. Mr. Maloney indicated that the height was their primary concern at the previous meeting. He called for a motion. Mr. Conway questioned if this motion is for all the occupants on this site or are we just talking about the main building, so are we going to have a second ground sign come to this board for the out parcel. Mr. Koberna suggested that he believes their intentions are that would be the only ground sign and each one of those panel structures. Mr. Olson indicated that would be independent. Mr. Koberna indicated that if ABC restaurant wants to come into the 30,000 sq. ft. out parcel, then, it's possible that they're going to say it's your property and come in here for another sign on the other side of the driveway. Mr. Olson indicated it is at your option, you don't necessarily need to grant a variance for the additional signage. Mr. Koberna commented that he knows that, but you're going to come in here screaming we've got a 5