04/04/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

projected time frame for the project. Mr. Dzwonczyk said the reason it has been moved along quickly is because tl-ie roadwork is already going on. Mr. Maloney asked Mr. Rymarczyk if numbers eight through eleven (#8-11) are all right as written now. Mr. Rymarczyk said they need minor change approval, which has not been obtained yet. He added that the board could make a determination pending approval, or they could table it and have Shell come back. Mr. Maloney said they have gone through the first seven requests and they c:an approve those. Mr. Rymarczyk pointed out there is an additional request involving the 35' triangle. :[t would go along with the two ground signs. Mr. Maloney suggested getting the first seven items taken care of and asked for further questions. He said the revision will be added to have both ground signs in a 35'triangle, code does not allow per section (1163.17 (a)). J. Maloney motioned to grant Shell, of 23385 Lorain Rd., its request for variance (1123.12) which consists of new sigms and that the following variances be granted as amended; 1). A variance for an additional ground si€;n (code permits 1, applicants shows 2), section (1163.26 (a)). 2). A 6 foot variance for ground sign too close to side lot line (Lorain Rd.) (code requires 20 feet, applicant shows 14 feet), section (1163.26 (b)). 3). A 3 foot variance for a ground sign too close to right of way (Clague Rd.) (code requires 5 feet, applicant :;hows 2 feet), section (1163.26 (b)). 4). A 16 foot variance for a ground sign too close to side lot line (Clague Rd.) (code requires 20 feet, applicant shows 4 feet), section (1163.26 (b)). 5). A 9 foot variance for a ground sign (pole) higher than pernutted (Lorain Rd.) (code permits 12 feet; applicant shows 21 feet), section (1163.26 (c)). 6). A 30.5 square foot variance for a ground sign with larger square feet of sign than permitted (code permits 50 square feet, applicant shows 80.5 square feet), section (1163.26 (c)). 7). A 73.6 square foot variance for excessive signage than is permitted on a lot (Lorain Rd.) (code permits 151.2, applicant shows 224.8), section (1163.24 (a)). 12). a variance to have both ground signs in a 35' triangle (rode does not allow, section (1163.17 (a)). The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar and unanimously approved. Variances Granted. Mr. Maloriey asked to continue with the remaining requests. Mr. Dzwonczyk proceeded with nurnber eight (#8) involving excessive height of a wall sign. He brought out a photograph of the sign that would be above the doors to the store. They would like to use the True North color scheme, which is green and tan. They were; advised the rooftop HVHC would not be permitted to be visible, so they devised their plan to resemble other True North stores. The sign they are referring to is what is above the door. He passed around tlie; photo. It is being counted as a sign, as an awing. Mr. Dzwonczyk mentioned that Mr. O'Malley said it may not be considered a sign if it is not illuminated. Mr. O'Malley asked Mr. Rymarczyk to comment on that issue. Mr. Rymarczyk said that in a backlit awning, it would be considered a sign. Mr. Dzwonczyk said that it: is counted as a sign and the variance is for the height of it being more than 4'. Mrs. Sergi asked if the sign needs to be that high to cover the HVHC. Mr. Dzwonczyk said the height of the sign does need to cover t:he HVHC but he believes the graphics make it a sign. It would otherwise be considered just an awning. FIe said it does have to be that high but perhaps the graphics could be made smaller. Mr. Rymarczy:k suggested that the awning could be made smaller and said there are a number of options. Mr. Dzwonczyk said they are looking for something that looks right but he realizes there are_ some options. They thinl: it looks good and accomplishes two things, so they are looking for relief on that request. Mr. O'Malley asked why there are three separate areas or units, not already screened. He asked if they were there prior to a screening requirement. Mr. Rymarczyk said that is evidently the case and now they are removing a gable, which was covering up the 2 or 3 units directly behind there. He said they would be visible noNv and would need to be screened. Mr. Dzwonczyk said request nine (#9) is for a 21 " variance for a wall sigri exceeding the top of the surface it is attached to. He went back to the plans and said they are referring to the projection of the awning above the brickwork. They believe it looks good aesthetically but they wou1d be willing to make changes if they cannot get it approved. They could make the brick work higher. F[e asked Mr. Rymarczyk, if they were to do something where the entire awning was lower, perhaps piat brick there, could it be done. Mr. Rymarczyk said they would have to go through the minor change format for approval. Mrs. Sergi questioned what was supposed to be 12" lower, the top of the sign 8