02/01/1989 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a . s BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FEBRUARY 1, 1989 PAGE 5 Zoning Code which stated, in part, that a non-conforming lot of insuff.icient size existing at the time the Zoning Code became effective may be developed providing that no adjoining vacant lot or parcel of land was owned by the same owner on the effective date of this Zoning Code; and advised that, under the circumstances described by the neighbors, they would also need a variance from this section of the code. He stated that the Board of Building Code E:ppeals could not approve this proposal under these conditions. Mr. Bugala believes that perhaps this should be presented to the Board of Building Code Appeals before coming back to this Board, but as this pro,posal stands now the variances requzsted are excessive. R. Gomersall moved to grant the 2 foot and 3 foot side _yard variances, the 5 foot total side yard variance and the 3 foot and 1 foot variances for the distance between dwellings; and also grant the 14 foot rear yard variance and the 140 square foot variance for the area of the house, seconded by T. Restifo. Roll call on motion: Gomersall, Restifo, Helon, and Bugala, no. Motion f.ailed to pass. Variance denied. 7. Great Northern Retail Campus Request for variance (1123.12). Request variance for oversize pole sign: request variance for 8 additional ground signs and oversize ground signs (.77 sq. ft, variance for 4 ground signs and 17 sq. ft. variance for 5 ground signs); request 127 sq. ft. variance for total sign area ior complex and various square foot variances for individual tenants. Violations of Ord. 87-93, Sections 1163.06-b1, 1163.06-f2, and 1163.06d. Chairman Bugala called all interested parties before the Board. The oath tvas administered to Mr. Papandreas, Biskind Development Company. Law Director Gareau advised that this proposal has been.reviewed by the Planning Commission who recommended that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve the variances. He pointed out that when there are special circumstances they should be treated specially, this is a 300 acre parcel of land and if the frontage were divided into senarate lots there could be numerous pole signs. Mr. Papandreas pre- sented the site plan showing the locations of the three tynes of signs and explained that the signage program is contingent upon the cor,tpletion of the parking lot and ring road improvements. He explained that the program is to facilitate traffic flow and to identify all the separate projects on their property which has over 10,000 lineal feet of frontage on Brookpark Road, Great Northern and Country Club Boulevards and there is approximately 7,000 lineal feet of building frontage. There will be three types of signage: the S retail camnus signs on the perimeter of the property, type 1 and lA. (the only pole sign), ground signs identifying the various projects (Plaza South, Plaza North, Tony Roma Plaza, and the Mall), and small directional signs. He advised that they are trying to create a program which will allow them some leverage in order to have the Marshall's pole sign and the Kronheim's arcade canopy sign removed. These stores have not agreed to removing the signs as yet. Mr. Gomersall does not believe'that this would be enough incentive to make those tenants remove those signs. P4r. Gareau stated that the Board could make their approval based on the removal of those signs. Mr. Papandreas did not believe that the entire sign program which identifies the entire campus should be jeopardized because of these two signs. Council- man Wilamosky also doubted that this size sign would be enough to make them remove their larger signs. Mr. Restifo would like this request continued until there is a comunitment that these signs will be removed. Mr. Papandreas asked the board to consider thesize and lineal feet of the parcel and to keep in mind the overall purpose of the pro?ram is to get traffic off the