My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/04/1993 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1993
>
1993 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
11/04/1993 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:32:32 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 7:32:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1993
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
11/4/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
<br />pointed out that the canopy covers the sign area of the building so they cannot <br />advertise on the building. There will be two logos and one "Speedway" sign on the <br />canopy. The members agreed that there should be no problem with that. J. Maloney <br />moved to grant the request of Speedway, 26516 Lorain Road, for a variance for a <br />changeable copy portion on new ground sign. Also to grant the variance to ha.ve <br />two logos and advertising on pump island canopy, seconded by R. Gomersall, and <br />unanimously approved. Variances granted. <br />10. Rainbow's End Nurse School, 31266 Bradlev Road. <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request variance to conduct a nursery <br />school in the Limited Industry/Industrial Park District. <br />Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1145.03. <br />Chairman Gomersall ca.lled all interested pa.rties before the board. The oath was <br />administered to Mr. and Mrs. Helzer, owners. Mrs. Nestoff and Mr. Jent, adjacent <br />property owners, stepped forward later and were sworn in at that time. Mrs. <br />Nestoff owns the residence on one side and Mr. Jent owns vaeant property on the <br />other. Mr. Gomersall explained that the rnzrsery school was not allowed in the <br />Industrial District. In response the Mrs. Nestoff's question, Building <br />Commissioner Conway advised that two businesses would be allowed on one property. <br />Mrs. Helzer explained that her mother-in-law owns the property and her husband <br />manages it. This property is sitlzated between two developments where there are a <br />great rnunber of small children. This proposal is not a day care, it is a pre- <br />school for education and will serve 24 three to five year old children. The <br />school wi.ll be open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with a session in the morning <br />from 8:30 to 11:30 a.m. and in the afternoon from 1:00 until 4:00 p.m. She <br />believed that this would be a good area because it is surround by trees and <br />grassy areas. This is not a day care, children would be dropped off just before <br />class, not earlier to accomnodate working parents. They clarified that the school <br />would be in the front building, the building in the rear has a different use. <br />They plan to provide a playground, but since this is a pre-school and sessions <br />are not longer than 3 hours, it is not required by the State. Mr. Conway is <br />concerned about the children going through the parking lot for the storage area <br />to get to the playground. Mr. Helzer stated that they could use the walkway to <br />the play ground. One of their tenants comes in a 5:00 a.m., and the others rarely <br />come in. Mr. Conway stated that the tenants could change. Mr. Grace compared it <br />to another nursery school where the children are dropped of at a specific spot. <br />Law Director Gareau stated that tlv_s district is the most restrictive, no single <br />family homes, no multi-family, or retail buildings can be built in the Limited <br />Industrial District. He stated that any of the uses an the property now could be <br />changed to some other type of industrial use and he does not believe that any of <br />the standards required to grant a variance could be applied in this case and is <br />troubled by this use in this district. Mr. Conway pointed out that under the like <br />and similar use section of the code, one of the criteria is that this use is not <br />permitted in another district and nursery schools are permitted in other <br />districts. Mr. Helzer stated that there could be an industrial use in this <br />district and the owners might want to operate a nursery for the their employees <br />during the day. Mr. Gareau stated -that industrial uses could be put in on either <br />side of this property and the nursery school would be stuck in the middle with <br />semi-trucks coming and going. The courts have only recently recognized use <br />variances, and this one would be difficult to justify considering the standards <br />which have to be applied. It might be easier to justify this use in an Office/ <br />Technical Park setting if it were set up for the children of employees. Mr. <br />Conway suggested that they reverse the request, and consider what would be done <br />if someone requested putting an industrial use next to a school in a residential <br />4
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.