12/03/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would be removed in January. Mr. Leech responded that this sign does not belong to Drug Mart, it belonged to the landlord. The landlord had told him that this sign did comply with the new ordinance, since he received a variances about 2 years ago. It was verified that the amount of signage requested in the variance does not include the amount of signage for the monument sign insert. Mr. Purper believed that pharmacy sign was needed, since they have food fair among other things, and they are set back so far from the road. It was noted that Mare's has a pharmacy sign; however, Marc's has a separate entrance for the pharmacy, as well as an inside entrance. Tlie members again discussed centering the sign. Mr. Leech believed that the pharmacy sign was really necessary, and if there were several units in this bu.ilding, there could be several individual signs. Mr. Purper agreed it was necessary because it was set back so far from the street, and he would rather look at the pharmacy sign than the huge blank space. It was clarified that the pharmacy sign would be illu.minated letters. Mr. Koberna is concerned that the landlord will not be willing to remove the insert from Lorain Road sign. Law Director Gareau suggested that the board grant the variance on the condition that the monument sign insert be removed. Mr. Gomersall stated that the signage is being reduced from 750 square feet down to 291 square feet and he would bend on the phannacy sign. The only change to the request would be conditioned on the signage on the sign in front indicating Drug Mart be removed. Mr. Gareau stated that it should not be conditional because the applicant has no control over that, but he would note in the motion that any signage in the monu.ment sign be removed. Mr. Leech questioned this since the tenant has no control over that sign, and the landlord will be cited in 1998 to remove it anyway. They want to build the sign now. He was told that he could not install it u.ntil the insert is removed. 7. Maloney moved to grant the request of Drug Mart, 24485 Lorain Road, for variance (1123.12). Request variance to install two (2) wall signs. A 161 square foot variance for sign area on a business unit. A 199 square foot variance for wall sign number 2. A 4 foot, 1 inch height variance with the stipulation that the owner of the properiy will remove the insert of the monument sign with Drug Mart on it. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1163.12(a) and 1163.11(c) with the notation that this sign be exempted from Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.26 concerning the amortizing of non-conforming signs. The motion was seconded by P. Miller. Roll call on motion: Maloney, Purper, Koberna, and Gomersall, yes. Mr. Miller abstained. Variance granted. Ihiriug the framing of the motion Mr. Gareau again explained that the variance could not be conclitioned on removing the sign insert, since the applicant did not own that. sign . Mr. Maloney changed the wording of the motion to reflect that the word "condition" should be changed to "stipulation." Mr. Leech then asked if he could request a smaller sign and keep the insert since his client had no control over it. The members believed that would be a completely different request. 10. Mowinski Builders, Sublots 156-A, 157-A, and 158/159-A, Broxbourne (eastem extension). Request for variance (1123.12). Request 4.6 foot variance on sublots 156-A, 157-A, and 158/159-A) in a C Itesidence District (60 feet required) to subdivide five (5) lots into four (4). Heard by planuing commission September 23, 1997 and November 25, 1997. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was adwiuistered to Mr. Mowinski, and Ms. McCrone, and her attorney, D. Kolick and Mr. Resar, an engineer. Mr. Gomersall clarified that they were asking for 4 foot, 6 inch variance of three of the four lots that were to be subdivided out of the origina151ots. He advised that the members have read the planning commission's minutes pertaining to this request. Mr. Mowinski explained that he was going to extend the road and put houses on the four lots. He stated that planning commission told him he could put a house on the one 48 foot lot, but the others had to be combined. He clarified that most of the other lots in the neighborhood are from 50 to 55 foot. Financially, it would not be feasible to just develop 3 lots. Law 6