12/03/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was adinivistered to R. Sylvester, sign contractor, who explained that the sign was akeady installed, and the variance was needed for the logo. The members had no problem with the request. W. Purper moved to grant the request of Petland, 4670 Great Northern Boulevard, for a 6 square foot variance for total sign area allowed for a business unit to add a logo to existing wall sign with the notation that this sign be exempted from Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.26 concerning the amortizing of non-conforming signs. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.11(c). The motion was seconded by T. Koberna, and unanimously approved. Variance granted. 8. Chester Connally, 3518 Beau.mont Drive. Request for variance (1123.12). Request 28 square foot variance for area of shed. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1136.02(d)(1). Chairmau Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was admiuistered to Mr. Connally, Mr. Giallouratis, his friend, and neighbors Ms. Ocampo and Ms. Rodriguez.' Mr. Gomersall explained that this is an irregularly shaped lot, and he needs a variance to put up a 8 by 8 foot shed, which is about the smallest shed that is manufactured. Mr. Connally showed where the shed would be in relationship to the house. It was determined that the shed would be setback beside the neighbors garage. The location is conforming. The neighbors had no problem with the request. J. Maloney moved to grant the request to Chester Connally, 3518 Beaumont Drive for a 28 square foot variance for area of shed. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1136.02(d)(1). The motion was seconded by W. Purper, and unanimously approved. Variance granted. 9. Discount Drug Mart, 24485 Lorain Road. Request for variance (1123.12). Request variance to install two. (2) wall signs. Request 161 square foot variance for sign area on a business u.nit. Request 199 square foot variance for wall sign number 2. Request 4 foot, 1 inch height variance. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1163.12(a) and 1163.11(c). Note: Write up is predieated on pole sign insert being removed by January 98 or sooner. NOTE: WALL SIGN NUMSER 2 IS NON-CONFORMING AND MUST BE REMOVED BY JANUARY 1,1998 PER ORDINANCE 90-125 SECTION 1163.26, iTNLESS AN EXEMPTION IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mr. Leech, sign contractor, who presented.an overlay rendering showing the existing signage on the 128 feet wide mansaxd, the way the sign would look, if it were conforming to the ordinance, and the sign as it is proposed. He pointed out that they are reducing the size of the signage. They are now in the process of updating the mansard of the building and they also want to add the word `?pharmacy" which is 17 square feet (considered the second wall sign). The proposed signage will reduce the existing by 35%. Mr. Koberna does not think that the word "pharmacy" is necessary since the word "drug" indicates that it is a pharmacy. Mr. Leech believed that since the word `?harmacy" is over to one side, it helped balance the signage on the mansard. The members suggested omitting `?harmacy" and centering the sign in the middle of the mansard, not keeping it over the entrance as shown. Mr. Leech stated that this is the way all of their signs are now. Mr. Gomersall noted that this is a lot of signage, however, they are set back quite far from the road. Mr. Kobema asked if the monument sign insert 5