12/11/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r'?t ? • Note: Pole sign must be removed by January 1, 1998. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1163.11 (a), 1163.12 (h), and 1163.22. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mr. Woost, sign contractor, who presented the proposal and eaplained that the pole sign is actually a pylon sign. He clarified the sign will be eight.feet offthe ground and will be higher than it is wide, which in his interpretation conformed with code requirements. Assistant Building Commissioner Rymarczyk noted that the drawing submitted was not of a ground or pylon sign, but was in fact a pole sign. Mr. Woost agreed that the drawing in question was of,a pole sign, but explained he verbally modified it, but was not able to work on a drawing as he was ill. He noted that he is willing to put a one foot plauter along the bottoin of the sign wluch he believed would make it a pylon sign. 1VIr. Rymarczyk agreed tlus would inake it a pylon sigu. He explained to Law Director Gareau that the height, width, and depth of the sign indicated that it was either a pole, pylon or ground sign. Mr. Gareau questioned if it conformed to the width and height of a pylou sign and there was a pole niuuing through it, what kind of sign was it. Mr. Ryinarczyk stated it was neither a pole or pylon sign, and was not a legal sign since the pole was not screened off. Mr. Woost repeated that he had told them that he would screen offthe bottom with a planter, but he had not been well enough to do the drawings. He would like to put up a sign for this business that is permanent, and will not have to be removed next year. The owners has two businesses at this location. The members agreed that this will be a pylon sign. Mr. Maloney is concerned because there are so many signs on the property, there are signs on both the south and east walls, signs over all the doors, a window sign, and a product sign. This is not shown on this drawing. Mr. Woost maintained that the building inspector had measured all the signs on the property and had told him he was allowed up to 45 square feet, that why he is asking for a 2.5 square foot variance. He clarified that the same man owned both businesses and the name of one business is Foreign Car Parts. Chairman Gomersall clarified that the only variances are for the 2.5 square feet and tlie names of both businesses on the property. W. Woost stated that the location of the sign will not interfere with any other signs and will not have to come down in 1998. He had a second drawing in case the board would prefer that, but it was decided to vote on the first one presented. W. Puiper moved to grant the request of Tony's Auto Etc., 26674 Lorain Road, for the following signage variances: a 2.5 foot variances for excessive free standing signage and a variance for two names to appear on pylon sign. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1163.11 (a), and 1163.12 (h).The motion was seconded by R. Gomersall, and unanimously approved. Variances granted. MOTION AMENDED 2/13/97 TO READ:W. Purper moved to grant the request of Tony's Auto Etc., 26674 Lorain Road, for the following signage variances: a 2.5 foot variances for.excessive free standing signage and a variance for two names to appear on pylon sign with the notation that this sign be exempted from Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.26 concerning the amortization of non- conforming si?ns. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1163.11 (a), and 116312 (h). The motion was seconded by R. Gomersall, and unanimously approved. Variances granted. 7. Chilles, 25061 Country Club Blvd. Request for variance (1123.12). Request the following signage variances: Request variance to have two wallsigns over the maximum permitted; Request a 37.5 square foot variance for area of signage; Request a 6 inch variance for the height. of sign. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1163.12(a), 1163.11 (b), and 1163.12 (a). 6