My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/04/1992 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1992
>
1992 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
03/04/1992 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:32:14 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 6:45:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1992
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
3/4/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
y --ti <br />Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the Board. Mr. Dragon, <br />the representative, had been sworn in previously. He explained that there was <br />formerly was a bell at that location, and this sign will cover that area. The <br />members had no problem with this request. J. Maloney moved to grant to Taco Bell, <br />24247 Lorain Road, the request for a 13 square foot variance for a wall sign over <br />the allowable sign area for a building, a 42 square foot variance for sign area <br />allowed for a total business use, and a 2 foot variance for vertical height of a <br />sign over the 4 foot maximLUn height allowed, seconded by R. Gomersall, and <br />unanimously approved. Variances granted. <br />Affordable Chiropractic, 4722 Great Northern Blvd. <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request variance to install a third prohibited <br />pole sign on property (polE would encroach front property line set back for free <br />standing signs). Also request 10 square foot variance for sign area over maxiimun <br />allowed. Violation.of Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.22(a) and 1163.11(c). <br />Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the Board. The <br />representative, Mr. Briola, had been sworn in for a previous request. Building <br />Conunissioner Conway clarified that because of the support this is considered a <br />pole sign, if this sign had a solid base it could be considered a pylon sign. A <br />pylon sign is taller than it is wide, but must be supported from a solid base <br />that comes directly from the ground. Mr. Grace pointed out that this was 10.by <br />10, which is not taller than it is wide. Mr. Conway responded it would still have <br />been considered a pylon sign if it ha.d had a solid base. Mr. Gomersall doubted <br />that another pole sign would be approved at this location. Mr. Briola offered to <br />make this a pylon sign. Mr. Maloney stated that on this corner from Great <br />Northern Boulevard down through that shopping area there is one sign after <br />another, and he believed that the owner should have to install one master sign. <br />Mr. Conway agreed, stating that he had made that same recommendation previously. <br />He stated that this Brookpark segment is going to look just like Great Northern <br />Boulevard; and if there is a visibility hardship in this location, it should be <br />up to the developer to correct it. Mr. Briola pointed out that this side of the <br />shopping center faces Brookpark Road and the entrance is on Great Northern <br />Boulevard, and it was haxd for him to find this location. Mr. Grace agreed that <br />this area is one of the hardest to find. Mr. Conway would rather see the <br />developer modify the existing "Olmsted Plaza" sign to include these.tenants. Mr. <br />Grace agreed and pointed out that B.P. and Office Warehouse already had their own <br />signs, so they would not have to be considered. Then in 1998 the developer would <br />have to propose some integr.ated signage. Mr. Briola stated the owner realized <br />that the sign would have to be removed in 1998, but he has a serious financial <br />hardship now, and he was also aware that other.tenants had been allowed signs. <br />Mr. Purper stated that if he was that concerned, he shoutd have been present. Mr. <br />Briola asked for a continuance in order to change the sign to a ground sign or a <br />pylon signo Mr. Conway explained that a 10 square foot variance was also <br />requested. Mr. Briola responded that they could reduce the size of the sign. Mr. <br />Conway further explained that there are setback requirements for ground and pylon <br />sign, but since pole signs are not permitted there are no regulations addressing <br />them, so a statement has been made that the pole sign encroaches into the setback <br />required for a free standing; sign. Originally this sign was shown in tYie.right of <br />way, but it is now shown in a parking space, however it still encroaches into <br />the setback. Mr. Gomersall_ pointed out that variance would be needed for one <br />parking space and a sign located there could be obscured by vehicles parking next <br />to it. Mr. Grace believed this is a bad location. Mr. Briola advised that the <br />owner was tmwilling to allow tenants to add to the "Olmsted Plaza" sign. Law <br />6
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.