07/06/1995 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chairmau Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was aciministered to Mr. Stock and Mr. Rochelle, a neighbor. Mr. Gomersall stated that he could not believe that he would want an electric fence in North Olmsted. W. Stock stated that the fence has been in place every summer since 1988, the highest wire is only 9 inches above the ground and no one has had a problem with it. Mr. Gomersall believed that there might be a problem if a child tripped and fell on the wires. Mr. Maloney agreed aud stated that children do wander. He did not thiuk it would do a child any physical harm, it would only remind them that they were trespassing. Mr. Rochelle noted that Mr. Stock had gone onto his property without his permission. He has a 6 year old who might wander onto his property. Mr. Stock asked if he could put a second fence around it. The board thought there could still be a problem if someone climbed the fence. Mr. Rochelle noted that he had not even posted a sign warning people that there was an electric fence. M. Boyle moved to grant Richard D. Stock at 25095 Sunset Oval, a variauce to have an electrified fence surrounding garden. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02. The motion was seconded by R. Gomersall. Roll call on motion: Boyle, Gomersall, and Maloney, no. Motion failed to pass. Variance denied. 6. Office Max/Cop Max, 26035 Lorain Road. Request for variance (1123.12). Request variance to have two additional wall signs. Request 202 syuare foot variance for excess business unit signage. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section s 1163.12(a) and 1163.11(c). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was admiuistered to Mr. White of Office Max and Mr. Wassermaun, sign contractor. Mr. Gomersall questioned why these sigus had been installed. Mr. Wassermanu stated that one sign facing the parking lot had been approved. It was explained that they could have the second wall sign because they had two separate uses in the building. It was clarified for Mr. Wassermann that the pole signs squar.e<footage is also included in the total allowed. W. Gomersall noted that the new sign package will reduce the signage by 12 square feet. They will be adding the Copy Max sign on the Brookpark elevation at the corner and a smaller Office Max sign will be installed further down. Mr. Maloney asked if they were going to put Copy Max signs on the pole signs later on. Mr. Gomersall suggested that they do not come back for one. Mr. White. Mr. Wassermann asked if the board would have a problem if they came back with a sign that said both, but was the same size insert as the others. The members did not believe that would be a problem. M. Boyle moved to grant the request for Office Max/Copy Max, 26035 Lorain Road their request for a variance to have two additional wall signs and to grant their request for a 202 square foot variance for excess business unit signage. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1163.12(a) and 1163.11(c). The motion was seconded by J. Maloney, and unauimously approved. Variances granted. 7. Carl and Lviui Polo, 4688 Carsten La. Request for variance (1123.12). Request 35 foot variance to install sections of 6 foot fence abutting the frout setback of the adjacent house. Also request 8 foot variance to install sections of 6 foot fence in required side setback. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02( fl. Chainnan Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mr. and Mrs. Polo. Mr. Gomersall stated that they did have an unusual situation. They presented a letter from the neighbors across the street who had no objection. Mr. Gomersall wondered if the people next door had a problem with a fence going down their driveway. Mrs. Polo advised that they would be 3