Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Variance Sequoia topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council stalls on Sequoia Financial sign variance; staff to pursue sign-code changes
Summary
City council considered a resolution to confirm a Board of Zoning Appeals denial of an illuminated 72.9-square-foot sign for Sequoia Financial Group; the motion to confirm the denial failed in roll call and council discussed proposed sign-code changes and a landlord-letter/one-sign-per-building approach.
Joe Glick, chief operating and chief financial officer of Sequoia Financial Group, told council his firm selected 5910 Landerbrook as a Cleveland-area "beachhead" and asked for building signage so clients and employees could find the location. Glick said Sequoia has grown rapidly and expected to occupy enough space "the day that we move in in June to meet our full year 2025 commitment."
The council considered Resolution 2025-20, a measure that would have affirmed the Board of Zoning Appeals' (BZA) April denial of a request to install a 72.9-square-foot illuminated wall sign at 5910 Landerbrook. The BZA had denied the variance by a 4–1 vote, with the board saying the applicant had not demonstrated the practical difficulty required under the city's sign-variance rules. BZA chair Sabato told council the BZA could not find the necessary practical difficulty under the current ordinance.
Braden, the city's building official, and a staff planner (Mr. Rowan) described a likely path to resolve similar requests: updating the sign code to allow one building-mounted identification sign per building, with the landlord's written approval submitted with the building permit. Rowan said other communities typically require the landlord to choose which tenant is eligible for a building sign to avoid multiple signs on one facade.
The motion to adopt the resolution confirming the BZA denial failed on roll call (votes recorded in the transcript: Balestreya — No; Talvin — No; Sabetta — Yes; Medic — No; Minor — No; Manno — No; Snyder — No). Council members who opposed the BZA's denial said they want to retain flexibility to recruit and retain corporate tenants and to finalize an updated ordinance; those who supported the BZA emphasized that the applicant had not shown the specific standard (practical difficulty) the BZA must apply.
Council and staff agreed on a near-term path forward: staff will prepare ordinance changes that would modernize sign standards for the corporate park and lay out procedures such as landlord sign-off and one sign per building. Braden cautioned that even if council overturns a BZA decision tonight, a future ordinance hearing and formal process would be required before a permit could be issued. The matter is expected to return to council as proposed legislation at a subsequent meeting.
