06/04/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board granted the variance, but denied the special permit to build it. Chairman Gomersall pointed out that this had not met any of the conditions. Mr. Gareau stated that with respect to the variance, not the special permit, someone on the prevailing side should move to reconsider the vote, in order to straighten this out. Mr. Grace believe that this should be left as is, and questioned if this should be that much of an i.nconsistency since the motion was broken up into two separate issues. Mr. Gareau stated that it would follow logically that if a variance is granted to build on a non-conforming building, when the time came to vote on the right to add to that building that should also be granted. It would not ma.ke sense to say that there is merit to the proposal, but it cannot be built. Mr. Grace pointed out that all three requirements were denied, so tha.t would be consistent with turning down the special permit, but was not consistent with granting the variance. Mr. Gareau advised that the Board should reconsider the vote relative to the variance, and if the members want to be consistent the vote should be changed. Mr. Gareau advised that if the variances were denied, there would be no reasori to vote on the special permit. B. Gomersall moved to reconsider the vote that was just taken on the variance for Velvet Touch Auto Wash. Mro. Gareau again advised tha.t the motion had to be made by someone on the prevailing side. S. Ferencik moved to reconsider the vote that was just taken for Velvet Touch, seconded by W. Purpero Ferencik, Purper, Maloney, and Gomersall, yes. Mr. Grace, no. B. Gomersall moved .to grant Velvet Touch Auto Wash, 27100 Lorain Road the request for variance (1123012) for a 42 foot front setback variance and a 12 foot variance for landscape 17uffer in front setback. Violations of Ord. 90-125, Section 1139.07 and 1139o08(e)3. Seconded by B. Grace. Gomersall and Grace, no. Ferencik, Ma.loney, and Purper, yes. Motion carried. B. Gomersall moved to grant the request of Velvet Auto Wash, 27100 Lorain Road, for a special permit to add to a non-conforming building. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1165.02. Seconded by B. Grace. Roll call on motion: Gomersall and Grace, noa Ferencik, Maloney, and Purper, yes. Motion carried. Variances and special permit granted. - Chi Chi's Restaurante. 25411 Great Northern Plaza North. - Request for variance (1123.12). Request variance for prohibited pole sign, request variance for coloring and illunination resembling a traffic contro3 sign; and request variance for 12 square feet over maxinnun allowed for free standing sign. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.22(a), 1163.04(f), and 1163.11. Existing ground sign will be removed. Proposal was presented to the Architectural Review Board April 22, 1992. Request was withdrawn by the developer from the meeting of May 6, 1992. Chairman Gomersall called all.interested parties before the Board. The oath was achninistered to P`ir. Manack, sign contractor.. Mr. Gomersall questioned if Mr. Manack was aware that pole signs were now prohibited and all pole signs would have to be removed by January l, 1998. Mr. Nlanack ad.vised that he was not aware that pole signs were prohibited, he was only told he had to come to this Board for permission .to install a pole sign. He questioned why this sign «ith 3 horizontal neon red, yellow, and green stripes resembled a stop light. This interpretation came from the Building Department. Mr. Gomersall advised that this Board has not approved a new pole sign for some time. Mro Ma.nack stated that had he lmown that he would not have wasted his time coming before the Board. Chi Chi's has a ground sign now, and he was advised tha.t ground or pylon signs are permitted by code. Mr. Grace stated that Yie could see no hardship here since Chi Chi's is visible fran the street. Mr. Manack stated that the Buildi.ng Department did not tell him that pole signs were no longer permitted and, when he asked for 3