My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/26/1982 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1982
>
1982 Planning Commission
>
01/26/1982 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:34:36 PM
Creation date
1/30/2019 7:10:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1982
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
1/26/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
? r A <br />t <br />? . ? <br />`Y <br />CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MINUTES - JANT3ARY 26, 1982 <br />I. ROLL CALL: <br />The meeting was called to order at 8:40 p.m. <br />Present: J. Burns, T. Morgan, R. Perla, J. Prokasy, J. Brown, <br />and B. Gorris: Absent: J. Roberts Also Present: Assistant Law Director J. Dubelko, Assistant City ? <br />Engineer D. McDermot, Building Commissioner E. . <br />Gundy, Councilman D. Woerple, and Recording <br />Secretary B. Oring <br />II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES: <br />Mr. J. Burns corrected the Minutes of January 12, 1982 on Page 2, <br />8th line to read "....the builder had started..." J. Prokasy <br />moved to approve the Minutes of January 12, 1982 as corrected, <br />seconded by J. Burns, and unanimously approved. <br />III. BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUESTS: <br />The signs were studied and discussed in conjunction with the <br />Architectural Board of Review Minutes of January 18, 1982. <br />Building Commissioner E. Gundy explained that.the Hoty Enter- <br />prises sign was non-conforming under the present Ordinance - <br />because of its location and had been granted a special permit <br />by the Board of Zoning Appeals. He also explained that the <br />original sign did rotate which is also non-conforming however, <br />the new owners are not planning to rotate the sign. In refer- <br />ance to the Architectural Board's comments Mr. Gundy stated <br />that the Conrads Religious Supplies' sign would probably fit on <br />the verticle portion of the roof, however, by code 20% of the <br />sign can extend over the roof. Mr. Gundy also advised that he <br />had talked with the owner regarding the abandoned pole sign on <br />the site of the property where London Carpet is located, and <br />he is also talking urith the Law Department as how to proceed <br />with condemnation of these abandoned signs. <br />T. Morgan moved to approve the signs (a-c) as recommended by the Architectural Board of Review January 18, 1982, seconded r <br />by R. Perla, and unanimously approved. <br />IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: <br />No. Items
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.