August 2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

same because it has a bigger floor plate. This sign is two hundred and fifty square feet. When I look at the size of that building, I would say that if it were going to maybe go on the west side where you have a flat face it might be architecturally ok; but, this is a very scallop and a very fine architectural building, and I just don't think that it would be architecturally desirable. I also look at the size of the sign, and look around the city, and don't find anything that resembles this sign; I don't think so anyway. Because of Halladay's position within the community -- specifically with the buildings downtown —we, as building owners, can understand the need to sign buildings some times because of the need for recognition of a specific tenant. We can also be sympathetic with Fifth Third Bank on this matter; but, I just think for Fifth Third Bank to have a sign of two hundred and fifty square feet, when the code is saying thirty -six to forty -five square feet is just not right. Now there are provisions where it can be accepted at larger sizes; but, these are the standards and that is eight times the size of what would be considered standard on a face. MELANIE GRAY: Last week we did receive a variance for the sign. We have kind of a hard logo to work with if you look at it. We tried to make it similar to the Old Kent Bank size letters. Because we have Fifth Third Bank instead of just Old Kent Bank, it had to be larger; because, their standard logo includes the 5/3 logo box. When the bank and I met with the structural engineer, we even talked about doing weighted connections with the sign possibly. If there is some kind of specific connection that you want us to adhere to, I am sure we would be open to that. JOHN OXIAN: I think that it is foolish to put a sign like this on top of an architecturally superior building. I also think that doing this is not going to make one bit of difference to attract customers to Fifth Third Bank no matter what direction the sign faces. The bank already has two smaller signs with the bank's name on them. This is a complete waste of money and it does a great injustice to the architectural design of this building. Maybe if this were a square plain modern office building, I might want to consider it, but, if you put this sign on the roof of that building, you will completely ruin the architectural style of this building. I am totally against putting this sign on the roof of this building. I would like to make a motion that this C. of A. be referred to the Standards and Maintenance Committee to see if a compromise can be met between both parties regarding this sign. If a compromise can be met between both parties, than I expect you to come back to this commission with that recommendation. If a compromise can not be met between both parties, than I expect you to come back and state that we recommend that this C. of A. be rejected. That one of these recommendations be presented at the upcoming September's meeting MARTHA CHOITZ: I second that motion. GERALD UJDAK: All those in favor say aye. All those against say nay. Motion carries unanimously. 9