Laserfiche WebLink
variance being granted for building setback, this addition results in a variance request of 20.92 <br />feet. <br />Mr. Sampat said the practice has grown since the building was built and they would like to stay <br />in this location. There are front yard setbacks to the north and the parking lot is to the west <br />making expansion options limited. They would like to maintain a similar design style to the <br />original building with materials, size and colors. <br />Ms. Lieber said the access to the property is provided from the O'Neill facility driveway to the <br />south. The applicant has an access easement in place with the owner. While the building addition <br />will come very close to the property line, it is a unique situation in that it is abutting a driveway <br />and not another structure. The setbacks in the Multiple Residence District are larger than in <br />commercial districts, as the code contemplates spacing that is comfortable for residential use. <br />Mr. Papotto did not think the variance request was as big as it looks because of the proximity to <br />the O'Neill driveway. Mr. Mackey thought it would be a great asset for the business to expand <br />and remain in the city, Mr. Rahm and Mr. Papotto agreed. <br />Mr. Mackey moved, seconded by Mr. Rahm, to approve the following variance for 21- <br />19662; Advanced Dental; 4780 Clague Road: <br />1. A 20.92 ft. variance for side building setback; code requires 26.79 ft., applicant shows <br />3.08 ft., Section 1137.07(G). <br />Motion passed 3-0. <br />21-19673; KFC; 27901 Lorain Road <br />Representative: Major Harrison, Major Source, PO Box 18869, Cleveland, OH <br />Proposal consists of signage. Property is zoned B-3 General Business. <br />1. A 28 sq. ft. variance for excessive sign area per building; code permits 92 sq. ft. based upon <br />primary fagade width, applicant shows 120 sq. ft. (84 sq. ft. approved + 36 sq. ft. proposed), <br />Table 1163.12-1. <br />2. A variance for a sign painted directly on a building; code does not allow, Section <br />1163.12(A)(6)(c). <br />The applicant is requesting approval to retain a building sign that has been painted on the wall of <br />the structure. The zoning code does not permit signage painted directly on a building. The area of <br />the sign also causes the total amount of signage on the building to exceed what code permits. <br />Mr. Harrison apologized for the confusion with this project. A separate contractor was hired to <br />do the building work and installed the sign before the sign package was approved. The words <br />"World Famous Chicken" have been stenciled over the main entrance to the building. He liked <br />the visibility of the signage and did not think it was obtrusive. He thought this sign gives <br />customers a point of ingress in addition the ground sign so they do not miss the driveway. The <br />sign would not interrupt government services. <br />Ms. Lieber said the sign was specifically not approved as part of the applicant's sign package <br />that was approved by the city in early June. However, it was installed by the general contractor <br />as part of the proposed building changes. The code update in December 2020 specifically <br />