My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/31/1996 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1996
>
1996 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
01/31/1996 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:33:24 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 9:15:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1996
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
1/31/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
q , <br />?. . <br />• ` ? ? <br />? <br />Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. Mr. Burge, the sign contractor, <br />piesented a mock up of the sign (the golden arches) which will be in two windows. He maintained that <br />one of the walls was on an angle, and the main sign could not be seen from Brookpark. At this time the <br />oath was administered to Mr. Burge and Mr. Payne, the owner. Mr. Burge stated that the McDonald's <br />frontage faces the parking lot. Mr. Maloney was concerned that this might set a precedent, and he <br />noted that you could see the interior sign from the parking lot. Mr. Payne stated that the window signs <br />could not be seen from the street, only the parking lot. Buildiug Commissioner Conway noted that <br />there was a sign facing Brookpark, and that each separate use has a right to a sign since they have <br />physical frontage in the store. He believed that this is something that should be addressed during the <br />code review since it is becoming common to have one or more businesses within another business. He <br />suggested that the owner of the original business should explain exactly what they were going to have <br />in a building. Mr. Burge explained that the signs are slightly larger than the model and would have <br />neon inside and be enclosed in black plastic on the sides. Mr. Conway agreed that this would be quite <br />far from the road. Mr. Maloney noted that the signs are only 28 by 30 inches. J. Maloney moved to <br />grant the request of McDonald's, 24801 Brookpark Road, for a variance to have two permanent logo <br />window signs. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.12(G). The motion was seconded by M. Boyle, <br />a.nd unan°vnously approved. Variance granted. <br />2. Waxnan's Carpets, 26624 Lorain Rd. <br />Request for variance (1123.12)._Request variance to use prohibited pole sign; a variance to have <br />individual tenant advertising on free standing sign; and 4 foot variance for location of sign from front <br />property line. Also request 7 square foot variance for excess business use signage for entire complex <br />Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.22(a); 1163.12(h); and 1163.11(a). Chairmau Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mr. <br />Waxmau, owner, Mr. Hixon, sign contractor, and Mr. Webb, manager of the bank next door. It was <br />clarified that the pole sign would only be for Waxman's. Mr: Waxmau advised that the sign was <br />existing and he would be more than willing to change to a conforming sign later on, after the business <br />is established. It will only cost about $1,000 to replace the faces, but it would cost about $5,000 to <br />build a new sign. Mr. Webb believed that a monument sign in this area would hinder visibility, and he <br />will probably have the same problem with his pole sign. Mr. Gomersall stated that 1998 was not that <br />far of? and eventually, the board will have to take a stand. Mr. Waxmau advised that he will replace it <br />in 23 months, or before if possible. W. Purper moved to grant the request of Waxman's Carpets, <br />26624 Lorain Road, for a variance to use prohibited pole sign; a variance to have individual tenant <br />advertising on a free standing sign, and a 4 foot variance for location of sign from front property line. <br />Also to grant a 7 square foot variance for excess business use signage for entire complex with the <br />stipulation that the sign must be removed by January 1, 1998 .to comply with the code. Violation of <br />Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.22(a); 1163.12(h); and 1163.11(a). The motion was seconded by J. <br />Maloney, and unaniinously approved. Variances granted. 3. Joe Arnold, 24227 Elm Rd. <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request 2 foot side yard variance and 4.7 total side yard variance to <br />construct family room addition with breezeway attaching existing detached garage to dwelling (existing <br />detached garage is 3 foot offproperty line). Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.07(a). <br />Chairmau Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was admuustered to Mr. <br />Arnold and Mr. Schroeder, contractor who explained that if they constructed the addition without the <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.