01/06/1988 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JANUARY 6, 1988 . PAGE 5 will deprive them of their property rights since hotel has .been operating at.' 59.8 percent occupancy, and they need 70 percent to b reak even. They believe the requested signage will improve. these figures. In regard to the third con- dition, he maintains this sign does conform.to.the intent of the ordinance since the purpose-of the sign ordinaiice states (in part):. (b) To pro.vide for reasonable, and yet appropriate, conditions for relating the size, tyne, and design of sign to the.type and size of the establishment and pointed out that the proposed sign is appropriate for'a ha.tel in a Mixed Use District adjacent to an interstate highway; the type of sign relates to the type of establish- ment; design of the sign relates to the design of the establishment. He £urther stated that the ordinances were designed for signs along Lorain Road with 35 mile per hour traffic, not for 55 mile_per hour highway traffic; . and that the.height is necessary to.be seen'through the trees of the neighbor- hood to the.south, and presented photographs to corroborate'that as well as _ proving that a building sign would riot be visible.from the west. Councilman McKay stated that the sign ordinance does_not guarantee that they can have . visibility from I=480,'they do have visib'ility;from the re5t of the city; ' the fact they they are not making a profit should not be considered a hardship; ° the-proposed sign exceeds heigtit, square footage, and total square footage" liinitations and the city will have it until the.twenty-first centurq; and few lots in the city are 'all the same. Mr. Carlisle respbnded that their current signage points to the city, and thelr business does not come from North Olmsted, if- they are refused the variance they will'not be able to continue to o.perate the hotel and will be refused their property rights; and the ordi- nance was drawn up in 1963, before I-480 was in existance: Councilman Wilamosky stated the'Hampton Inn was planned at this location; after the construction of _ I-480, questioned if such a sign should be.allowed in an urban area, but stated he_understands the need for some.type.of sign off.I-480. Mr... Carlisle ' stated that a 25 foot pole sigri-is designed f.or a.typical building fronting a typical street, and :because of-their location and the -topography of. this parcel, the Board has the authority to look at-these differences and to' grant a variance. Ctiairman Remmel advised the audience that tfiis'request is'." being heard `again.because the location of the sign has been chariged.and he + . requested that one or two people be delegated to speak for the neighbors .? present: Mr. Frick, Mrs. Ho11y, and Mr. ?Bedy, all residents_of Kennedy Ridge Road, bbjecte.d to the proposal on the basis that: pronosed?%sign:is ,seven and a half times what is allowed, height is 3 times legal Iimit,?it will be two stories above the height of the building; sign is dangerous, undesirable;',. . would depreciate property values, would be an eyesore, would violate their ethics, would•bring in.more congestion, would destroy the-value,of-their`well ' being, would open up more requests?of a similar nature, this developer is . . planning another.motel and will be requesting another s.uch sign, North Olmsted will become a truck stop; developers'are taking,away the rights of the residents. It.was suggested that a standard freeway sign (gas, food; 'lodging) would be sufficient and requested that the Board consider the residents of the city. - Mr. Bugala stated that the hardship is on the west, mainly because of the trees, and-the spot that they have chosen will be covered by the growth. of these trees in the future. Mr. Carlisle*requested continuence of the xequest on the basis that there is not a full board present, and-stated that since proposal would appear'not to be satisfactory, he would like to come back with a different proposal. Mr. Grace stated it would be un.fair to ask the residents to return, and pointed out that the law requires only 3 members to be present. Law Director Gareau advised that since the evidence has been presented, the Board . may or may not grant a continuence. Mr. Grace prefers to-vote,on the proposal, stating that:the building and sign' locations should have been researched before