My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/09/1980 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1980
>
1980 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
01/09/1980 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:35:01 PM
Creation date
1/30/2019 8:30:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1980
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
1/9/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
? <br />ff <br />BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JANUARY 9, 1980 PAGE 3 <br />Chairman Ledvina called all interested parties before the Boardo <br />The oath was administered. Chairman Ledvina advised that the <br />request as stated on the agenda is.amended to request an oversized <br />pole sign as well as a second pole sfLgn. It was explained that <br />Big "0" is adding the AMC Dealership and that American Motors <br />requires that there be a sign identifying the dealership. Mr. <br />Ledvina stated that exdsting pole sign is oversized and that the <br />new sign is also oversized. The Oldsmobile Company will not allow <br />a combined sign. Mr. Remmel pointed out that since the building <br />is so far back that it would be a public service to advise North <br />Olmsted residents that there is an American Motors Dealership there, <br />and also that other car dealers have several wall signs th.at are <br />visible from the street. It has beem the policy of the Board in <br />the last 6 years not to give variances for oversized signs. The <br />appellant ammended his request for a50' sq. ft. sign. It was <br />pointed out that 2 cars are displayed in the front set back area <br />illegally, a variance had been granted to park only 6 cars in that <br />area. The appellant agreed to remove the 2 additional cars. C. <br />Remnel moved to grant -the vari-ances for a second pole sign, but <br />deny the variance for the oversized.-sign, seconded by L. Horvath. <br />Roll call on motion: Messrs. Remmel and Horvath, aye, and <br />Messrs. Ledvina and Wasniak, nay. Request denied. <br />The Board discussed what reasons wouZd be acceptable 'Lor granting <br />variances for portable temporary sigms. To grant a new business <br />a variance for such a sign for a 30 day period could be a reason- <br />able solution. This is to be discuss?ed further at a later datem <br />It was decided that the suggestion th,at an Ordiance be considered <br />to permit one_.sign. per-year, per busimess for a 30 day period <br />would be totally unenforceable. At this time the Long Range <br />Planning Committee of Coimcil is meet:ing with-the Chairmen of <br />the various Boards in -an -attempt to rewrite and clarify;.:the <br />exdsting Sign Ordinance, <br />Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. <br /> <br />D. Zedvina, Chairman B. 0 ring, Ckecording Secretary
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.