05/03/1989 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MAY 3? 1989 _ PAGE 2 5. North Olmsted Chiropractic Center, 30701 Lorain Road Request for variance (1123.12). Request 16 square foot variance for a ground sign. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1163.06-f2, Chairman Bugala called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Dr. Adams and C. Woost, c.ontractor, who explained that the ground sign would be placed on the west side of the entrance drive and would meet the set back restrictions. The sign will be for Dr. Adams and the other tenants. Dr. Adams explained that the sign was made and Mr. Woost stated that he had been unaware that a ground sign had to be smaller than a pole sign. They further advised that if they put it up as a pole sign it would block the beverage store sign next door. Mr. Bugala believes that the sign should conform. B, Grace moved to approve the variance for the North Olmsted Chiropractic Center, 30701 Lorain Road for a 16 square foot variance for a ground sign in violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1163.06-f2, seconded by R. Gomersall. Roll call on motion: Grace Gomersall, and Helon, yes. Mr. Bugala, No. Motion carried. Variance granted. 1. Home Centers, Inc., (heard at this point) located to the rear of Bob Evans Restaurant at 25853 Lorain Rd. Request for variance (1123.12). Request variance to have one less driveway than required. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1161.09(a). Also request variance to have second pole sign on property. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1163.06(b)4. (Heard by Planning Commission March 14, 1989). Withdrawn by developer from agenda of April 5, 1989. Chairman Bugala called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr. Valore, attorney, Mr. Cody, architect, and Mr. Hathaway, all representing Home Centers and to adjacent property owners, H. Bedar, Stark Development Company, Mrs. Bartolozzi and Mr. DeBliss, Kings Path Condo- mini.um. Law Director Gareau had requested the minutes of the meetings which disCussed the rezoning of this property from Class "B" High Rise to General Retail as well as those discussing the Bob Evans building proposal. Those minutes reflect that the issue.of using the rear property and the issue of having only one driveway were discussed by the Planning Commission and that there was an opinion of the Assistant Law Director that if the property was rezoned the rear portion could be used as General Retail. Mr. Gareau stated that he remembered a conversation at some meeting regarding an easement being reserved so that the back portion of the property could be used, but this conversation was not in these minutes. Since the Commission was aware of these issues, he is confused about why the Planning Commission has forwarded this to the Board of Zoning Appeal's since they had already, in fact, approved one driveway. He pointed out that no variance had been granted for one drive in 1984 when the restaurant was built. Building Commissioner Conway advised that he had directed this proposal to this board on the basis that this is a new development and variances should be granted for any existing nonconforming situation. Mr. Gareau stated that this is a dilemma since these issues were raised at the Planning Commission meeting but the rezoning and building proposals were approved. Mr. Bugala would like this proposal referred to the Law Department for their opinion as to where this proposal should go next, and pointed out that the Board had not had time to study the Legal Memorandum which was prepared by Mr. Valore and submitted just prior to the meeting. Mr. Valore reminded the Board that the proposal has been to Planning Commission and was referred to this board, and advised that they must start construction as quickly as possible since they have been displaced from the current store, and are now going into temporary quarters. He would like some assurance that the plans will proceed on through the various boards without being shifted back and forth. Mr. Conway advised that the proposal would still have to be