Laserfiche WebLink
Representative: Eyed Ali <br />A variance request was reviewed for a sign at 26901 Brook Park Extension. The applicant sought <br />approval for an 80 square foot sign on a secondary facade, exceeding the 34 square feet <br />permitted by code. The sign had already been installed at twice the approved size due to the <br />contractor using the original, unapproved file by mistake. It was argued that the larger sign <br />improved visibility for customers due to the building's layout and lack of street -facing signage. <br />The board discussed the lack of demonstrated hardship and the procedural issues involved in the <br />installation. <br />Mr. Mackey moved to approve 232-2025; Low Cost Pharmacy; 26901 Brookpark Ext., seconded <br />by Mr. Kovach <br />Motion Failed: 5-0 <br />235-2025; Qdoba/Smoothie King; 26440/26430 Lorain Rd. <br />Representative: Steven Kolber <br />A variance request was reviewed for a commercial property at 26440 and 26430 Lorain Road, <br />where a former Boston Market was being renovated into two separate units: Qdoba and <br />Smoothie King. The applicant sought permission to install overhead electrical service drops <br />instead of the underground connections required by city ordinance, due to First Energy's stated <br />preference and limitations. The Board discussed the ordinance, the scope of the renovation, <br />utility logistics, and alternative options. Ultimately, the variance was supported on the grounds of <br />hardship, practical limitations, and minimal visual or safety concerns. <br />Mr. Mackey moved to approve 235-2025; Qdoba/Smoothie King; 26440/26430 Lorain Rd., <br />seconded by Ms. Galateanu. <br />Motion Passed: 5-0 <br />240-2025; Tuff Shed; 24280 Lorain Rd. <br />Representative: Jason Pelfrey <br />The case regarding Tough Shed at 24280 Lorraine Road was reviewed. The applicant sought <br />variances for signage on both the primary and secondary facades of the building, exceeding the <br />square footage allowed by code. The company, a large shed manufacturer, explained the need for <br />multiple facade displays to showcase different shed models as part of a full site refresh. The <br />building had recently undergone renovations including new asphalt and concrete work. City <br />officials confirmed that the facade displays constituted signage under local code and had worked <br />with the applicant to ensure appropriate placement. The board discussed potential issues with <br />outdoor shed displays and branding limitations in the region. A motion was made and seconded <br />to approve the requested variances. The board expressed support, noting the marketing approach <br />was preferable to outdoor displays. <br />4 <br />