03/09/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,. definition of a sign which includes a figure in Section 1163.03. In his opinion, the statue is put there to draw attention to that structureo Mr. Berman responded that, because of its location, it is not accomplishing that purpose. Mr. Gareau stated that he did not know what else it could be considered, the Big Boy is a figure. He stated that, if it was not a sign, where you put it, its size, etc. would not matter, and it could be as tall as they wanted it. Mr. Berman stated that the only reason he was inentioning the location was because the second part of this request was for a variance for a sign and in that case, when you consider the location of the statue, and the purpose of the sign ordinance which is to keep the view of the street relatively uncluttered, the location then becomes important. Mr. Gareau reiterated that if this was not a sign, what should it be considered.J. Maloney moved that, in regard to Elias Brothers request at 26770 Lorain Road, to uphold the Building Official's determination that the Big Boy statue is a sign and must be appealed under Ord. 90-125, Sections 1163.11(A) and 1163.12(B), seconded by M. Boyle, and unanimously approved. Ruling upheld. Since it was determined that the statue is a sign, the alternate request was heard. Request for variance (1123.12). Request 56.50 square foot variance for total sign area for a business use; request 89 square foot variance for free standing signs; and request variance to have a second free standing sign (one allowed). Violations of Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.11(a); and 1163.12(b). Chairman Gomersall explained to Mr. Berman that the last time this was before the Board, the members had been willing to give approval for the statue if some of the existing signage could be removed. The representatives at that time refused. He asked Mr. Berman if he woul'd be willing to give up some signage. Mr. Berman stated that they could not give up the street sign. J. Ma,loney moved to grant to Elias Brothers Restaurants, 6700 Lorain, the request for a 56.50 square foot variance for total sign area for a business use and a 89 square foot variance for free standing signs; and the request to have a second free standing sign (one allowed). At this point Mr. Gomersall asked if this were denied, would it would effect the existing signage on the property. Mr. Conway explained that tlie signage is aver sized to begin with, and the square footage of the statue was added onto the existing signage. Mr. Gomersall clarified that, if this is not approved, the intention was not to require them to do more than remove the statue. Mr. Conway responded that only the new sign would be affected, the pole sign could stay there Until January 1998 when non-conforming signs ha.ve to be removed. The motion was seconded by R. Gomersall. Roll ca11 on motion: Maloney, Gomersall, Koberna, and Purper, no. Ms. Boyle, yes. Motion failed to pass. Variance denied. Hennie Homes, 30487 Lorain Rd. Request for variance (1123.120. Request variance to install real estate sign at location other than the property involved. Request variance to locate sign in prohibited 35 foot triangular area. Request 1 foot variance for location from side property line and request 4 foot variance for location from from front property line. Violations of Ordinance 90-125, Sections 1163.12(g), 1163.04(h), and 1163.12(g). Please note: Approval signed by property owner has not been submitted. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr. Grendell, attorney for Hennie Homes. Btiilding CorrIIn.issioner Conway advised that he just received the letter of permission from the owner of the property. Mr. Grendell explained that because of the unique location of this Mixed Use Development there is a hardship involved. The development is situated off Barton Road on Cinnamon Way and many of their potential buyers.have missed 2