11/03/2014 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

! I 1. A 2 ft. side yard varnance for a shed placed in the required 5 ft. side yard setback; code requires 5 ft., applicant shows 3 ft., Section 1135.02(cl)(5). 2. A 3-1/2 ft. rear yard variance for a shed plaeed within the 10 ft. swale easement; code does not permit, applicant shows 6-1/2 ft., Section 1135.02(d)(4) Motion passed 5-0. COlVIMERCIAL APPEALS ANI) REQUESTS APP14-1936: Lube Ston; 28401 I,orain Road: 1123.07 Appeals. The applicant has appealed the decision of the Building Commissioner that the removal of an existing pole sign and installation of a new sign pole at this location constitutes a new pole sign, which is in violation of sections 1163.10 and 1163.31 and must be removed. Note: BZA tabled on 10/6/14. The oath was administered to Albert Haddad witli Ellet Sign Company and Building Commissioner Jeffrey Grusenmeyer. Mr. Haddad said in early June he spoke to inspector Peltz regarding changing the sign face on an existing pole sign (Lube Stop) and he was advised face changes were allowed as long as you don't change the size or height of the sign and a permit is pulled. Based on that discussio.n a service tech was sent to the site to determine the exact size and height of the sign so when installed it would match the existing sign. When installing the sign it was found that the pole was in such poor condition it needed to be replaced. In reading code section 1163.10 non-conforming signs, it allows maintenance as long as it does not exceed 50% of the sign's replacement costs, which it wasn't, so the work was completed although they neglected to apply for a permit. He intended to pull the permit but before he could a building inspector saw the worlc being done and stopped it. He submitted a permit application and a check to Ms. Rudolph which was never filed with the city. He said the position the city took is replacing the pole constitutes a new pole sign which is not allowed by code. He submitted pictures of the pole prior to being changed. Ms. Rudolph said the applicant's packet included photos of other signs within the city. Mr. Haddad said the first page of the paclcet shows the size of the existing sign and lists the worlc. The 6 inch pipe was sleeved into the existing footer outlining the bottom portion of the pole and grouted in the 8 inch foundation. Ms. Rudolph asked what constituted a cabinet. Mr. Haddad said the cabinet is made up of aluminum fabricated fraine, the sign faces and lighting elements inside the cabinet. Ms. Rudolph asked if the lighting elements inside the cabinet were changed out and Mr. Haddad said no. He believed he's done less than 50% of the sign's value as the worlc completed was no more than its total value to replace. Neither height nor square footage of the sign was altered. . Mr. Grusenmeyer said the applicant is appealing his decision under chapter 1163.31 as there has been no ruling made under chapter 1163.10. What the applicant presented was based upon a ruling which has not been made. The electrical services were disconnected and terminated at the junction box the pole was burned off at grade and the entire sign removed from site. These items were removed from the site for an unknown period of time without being ordered to be removed. The owner or their acting agent voluntarily removed a non-conforming pole sign and the site was without a sign for a period of time. The pole sign now installed is coinprised of a new pole structure, inserted in an existing foundation, new sign face, new electrical power and lighting. The only part which reinains from the previous sign is the sign cabinet frame and lights inside.