06/18/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - JCTNE 18, 1997 I. ROLL CALL: Chairman Zergott called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. Present: B. Zergott, M. Yager, S. Krieger, and T. Liggett. Absent: T. Gallagher. ALso present: Assistant Bu.ilding Gommissioner Rymarczyk and Assistant Clerk of Commissions Cornish. II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF NIINUTES: M. Yager moved to approve the May 21, 1997 minutes as presented, seconded by T. Liggett and unanimously approved. Motion carried. III. SIGNS: 1) Seaman's Fumiture, 24869 Lorain Road Sign package for building proposal reviewed by architectural review board March 20, 1996. Mr. Bizjak, sign contractor, presented colored renderings and photographs of the proposed'signage. Chairman Zergott verified this presentation is for ground signs, build.ing signs and directional signs. Mr. Bizjak explained, as a result of landlord request, the sign is supposed to have white letters with bronze number 313 trim and returns. The background will appear dark and the sign will be illu.minated during the evening hours. The pylon sign will be raised up and set back 10 feet. Mr. Bizjak clarified, if the sign were kept at its present height and location, it would not be visible over the approved landscaping. He advised the directional signs are necessary because there are two entrances. Such directional signs will be green to match the roof and various trim colors on the building. The members discussed the proposaL Mr. Zergott questioned if the proposal meets code requirements. Assistant Building Commissioner Rymarczyk advised signage variances would be needed. Mr. Yager noted the various sign locations. Mr. Bizjak advised one building sign on the previous submittal has been removed. Mr. Yager confirmed there would be two bu.ilding signs and Mr. Rymarczyk verified variances will be required for the second wall sign and the overall height of the sign. Mr. Yager wondered why city standards were not being followed with regard to the height of the sign. Mr. Bizjak explained the signage is minimal in comparison to the size of the bu.ilding, and he is within code for the overall signage permitted for this building. He noted the second wall sign is needed so that it is visible from- the other angle. The members discussed the ground sign. . Mr. Bizjak.advised the ground.sign will be.the__same._sigiias._is_-existing, however changes were necessary due to the height of the landscaping. He explained the bottom portion of the existing sign will be removed, and the remainder of the sign will be placed on a four foot pole cover. Mr. Yager noted that the existing sign is blue and Mr. Bizjak confirmed the sign would be re-faced a green color. Mr. Bizjak pointed out which of the existing signs will be removed. It was noted the directional signs will be illu.miuated. Mr. Yager recommended making the directional signs non- illuminated and using a reflective coating. Mr. Bizjak advised the background will be opaque, allowing only the letters to be illuminated. Mr. Yager did not have a problem with two building signs, but did not see the necessityfor the directional signs. He clarified traffic coming in and out of these two curb cuts is not one way. Mr. Liggett agreed and noted ttiat tlie ground sign gives indication to the entrances. Mr. Bizjak advised these signs were put in to make the property look more uniform, which he believed the architects would appreciate. Mr. Liggett explained directional signs should be more of a background type sign. Mr. Yager noted there is enough clutter along Lorain Road and reiterated the directional signs are not necessary. The members agreed the