10/01/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board: The oath was adininistered to Mrs. Botoman. The members had no problem with this request. J. Maloney moved to grant the request of Josephine Botoman, 6092 South Porter Road for a 45 square foot variance for area of shed that exceeds the maximum 2% of the rear yard. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02(d-1). The motion was seconded by P. Miller, and unauiinously approved. Variance granted. 6. James A. Repas, 5799 Porter Road. Request for variance (1123.12). Request 54 square foot variance for area ofproposed dwelling. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.03(b). Note: minimum lot width is 70 foot proposed lot is 52 feet wide; and minimum lot area is 10850 square feet, proposed lot is 7020 square foot. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board: The oath was administered to Mr. J. Repas. The members have no problem with the request. W. Purper moved to grant the variance to James A. Repas, 5799 Porter Road, for a 45 square for variance for area of proposed dwelling. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.03(b). The motion was seconded by J. Maloney, and unanimously approved. Variance granted. 7. Debbie's Loung;e, 29843 Lorain Road Request for variance (1123.12). Request variance to be exempt from removal ofnon conforming pole sign. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.26. NOTES: 1) Top of sign cabinet is 15'-2" above grade at base ofpole with 9'-9" clearance at bottom of cabinet to grade. 2) Edge of sign cabinet is 2'-9" from sidewalk or a nominal l'-9" from the right-of-way. 3) Building has no sign on it. CONTINLTED FROM MEETING OF JULY 3, 1997. Chairmau Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mr. and Mrs. Dublo, Miss Dublo, their daughter, President of Council J. Boehmer, and Councilma.n D. McKay. President of Council Boehmer presented a picture showing the location of the sign. I3e explained that if the sign is moved and put further back it will interfere with visibility of drivers no matter which side of the properry it is installed on. Also, an Illuminating Company pole and a tree would have to be removed. If it were lowered a car could hit the sign, since they now need poles to protect the pole of the sign. He suggested that the sign only be lowered just enough so that a driver could see under the it. Mr. Gomersall stated that the city is trying to get rid of pole signs, but there will be some areas where a pole sign would be necessary, but he does not see why they cannot lower this one. Mr. Purper thought that it had been decided at the previous meeting that they were going to work something out so they could have a ground sign. Mr. Boehmer repeated that to have a ground sign it would have to be moved so the light pole and a tree would have to be removed. Miss Dublo asked if the sign could be put on the building. Assistant Build.ing Commissioner Rymarczyk advised that if anything is done to this sign, it would have to have a iTL rating, and he does not think it has one, so it might be better to get a new sign entirely. W. Miller stated that a sign on the building would not help since they were set back too far. Mrs. Dublo wondered why it could not just be lowered and stay where it was. Mr. Rymarczyk stated that the sign was on 2.5 feet off the sidewalk and a ground sign had to be set back fiuther. After some discussion, it was decided that a variance for the height of the ground sign could be granted and the sign could be put on two poles. This would be the same type variance that Ethan Allen was granted. It was determined that if the sign were 12.5 feet 6