11/02/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- N . there was no deception intended and he noted that his unit sets back fiuther and it is on a hill wluch inakes it more difficult to be seen.. It was noted that these were not a huge variauces. The Auto Impressious will use an existing cabinet, but the other signs are new. W. Purper moved to graut the request of Lorain Road auto Body & Frame and Auto Impressions, 24532 Lorain Road for a 20 square foot variance for excess sigu area on a business unit for Lorain auto Body and a 19 square foot variance for excess sign area on a business unit for Auto Impressions. Note: signage on pole insert uot addressed since pole sign is a legal non-conforming sign until 1/1/90. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.11(c). The motion was seconded by R. Gomersall. Roll call on motion: Purper, Gomersall, Boyle, and Koberna, yes. Mr. Maloney, no. Variauces granted. Mr. Gomersall requested that they advise the owner, Mr. George, that when they replace the pole sign he should come in with a total package. 7. Reehorst Cleaners, 23459 Lorain Road. Request for variance (1123.12). Request 5 foot front setback variance for location of ground sigu from front property line. Request variance to place ground sign in 35 foot restricted triangular area. Request 116 square feet variance for excess business use signage. Note existing pole sigu is being replaced. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1163.12(b) and 1163.11(a). Chauman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mr. Reehorst, owner, and Ms. Basar, sign contractor. Mr. Gomersall is concerned about visibility and suggested that they move the sign back a foot or two from the sidewallc. He was also coucerued because the sign was only 6 inches off the ground and a driver could not see uudenieath it to tuim out. The members discussed moving the sign back further or granting a variance for the height so drivers could see undemeath it. It was decided that the sign could be set back a iniunnum of 5 feet fiu-ther off the sidewalk. Mr. Maloney suggested that the sigu could be shortened by taking 6 or 8 inches off each side. Building Commissioner Conway stated that there is still be problem of being in the 35 foot restricted triangular area which is stipulated for visibility. After some discussion, Ms. Basar believed the sign could be shortened by 6 inches without malcing it too boxy looking. Mr. Koberna was not in favor of raising this sign, since that tlus would eluniuate the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Conway advised that the 5 foot was to be measured froin the property line, and it was possible that the property line is 1 foot inside the sidewalk so then the sign would have to be 6 feet back. Mr. Reehorst agreed to move it back as far as possible. It was clarified for Ms. Basar that they are allowed a certain amount of sign area for the entire development and the variance is needed because the building signage is over that amount, even thougli the ground sign conforms to size requirements. Mr. Reehorst believed that the property frontage he had on Clague Road would entitle him to more sign area. Mr. Conway advised that the area is based on building frontage, not property frontage. He further advised that by reducing the leugth of the sign the variance would be for approximately 112 square feet. B. Gomersall moved to grant to Reehorst Cleaners, 23459 Lorain Road, a 5 foot front setback variance for location of ground sign from front property line, seconded by W. Purper. Roll call on motion: Gomersall, Purper, Boyle, Koberna, and Maloney, no. Motion failed to pass. Variance denied. R. Gomersall moved to grant Reehorst Cleaners, 23459 Lorain Road, a variance to place a ground sign in the 35 foot restricted triaugular area and a 112 square foot variance for excess business use signage. (The existing pole sign is to be replaced). Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1163.12(b) and 1163.11(a). The motion was seconded by W. I'urper, and uuanimously approved. Variauces granted. 4