01/07/1981 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J ft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JANUARY 7, 1981 PAGE 2 this sign he will have difficulty leasing his property,.especially since the facia signs are not easily visable from Lorain Rd. It was suggested that all tennants put sigrs on one pble. This would allow a 10 sq. ft. sign for each tennant. A ruling of the Board.on December 3, 1980 stated that changing faces on a sign for a new user will be considered a change to the structure of the sign, and will be subject to the provisions of the Ordi- nance. C. Remmel moved to grant the variances, seconded by W. Wasniak. Roll call on motion: Remmel, Wasniak, Ledvina, and Horvath, Nay. Motion failed to pass. Variances denied. 3. Diamond Trading Co. (Bob Cutler Signs), 4722 Great Northern.Blvd. Request for variance (1133.13). Request variance for more than one pole sign on propertyo. Violation of Ord. 62-33, Section 1221.06 B-4. . Chairman Ledvina called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered. This sign conforms as far as location. The appellant stated that the pole sign is necessary because the facia sign is not visable from Brookpark Rd. and entrance to the shopping center is on Great Northern Blvd. This non-conforming sign is for a new user and there is more than one pole sign on the property. Mr. Hickson of Cutler Sign Co. stated that this ? shopping center is extremely large and that some provisions should be made for that circumstance. C. Remmel moved to grant the vari- ance, seconded by W. Wasniak. Roll Call on motion: Remmel, Wasniak, Ledvina, and Horvath, Nay. Motion failed to pass. Vari- ance denied. (See Below) - 4. Northeast Appliance & Audio, 4600 Great Northern Blvd. Request for variance (1133.13). Request variance for location of pole sign.. Violation of Ord. 62-33, Section 1221.06F-4 and also, request variance for more than one pole sign on property. Vio- lation of Ord. 62-33, Section 1221.06 B-4. Chairman Ledvina called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered. It was explained that there is no visability of the store front when driving, south. on Great Northern Blvd. because of the location next to theatre and tire store. The lawyers for Northeast Appliance stated that one of the conditions for their moving into this building was that they had the right to use this sign. After a lengthy discussion of the Ordinance and the ruling of the Board made on December 3, 19809 it was brought to the attention of ,the members that this sign had received its approvals from the Architectural Board of Review and Planning Commission prior to the ruling of December 3, 1980. Law Director M. Gareau suggested that the Board recess for an executive session ? to discuss the circumstances of this case. Upon resumption of the