Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS <br />AP1aIL 7, 2005 <br />MINUTES <br />I. ROLL CALL: <br />Chairman Maloney called the meeting to order at 8:15 p.m. <br />PRESENT: Chairman J. Maloney, Board Members; W. Kremzar, T. Kelly, M. Diver and N. Sergi <br />ALSO PRE5ENT: Assistant Law Director B. O'Ma11ey, Building Commissioner D. Conway, and <br />Clerk of Commissions D. Rote <br />H. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MIlWTES: <br />W. Kremzar moved to approve the March 3, 2005 minutes as written. M. Diver seconded <br />the motion, roll call on the motion; W. Kremzar, M. I)iver, T. Kelly and J. Maloney "yes", <br />and N. Sergi abstained. Motion carried. <br />Chairman Maloney reviewed that there were 5 cases requesting 19 variances on the docket. He <br />further advised that the board members had viewed the premises involved for each case. Three <br />votes are required for approval and in addition, each case would be judged on the physical <br />situation peculiar to itself, so that in no way is a judgment rendered considered to be a general <br />policy judgment affecting properties and like situations elsewhere. <br />M. BUII,DING DEPARTMENT REQUESTS: <br />1. Weber Automotive, 23779 Lorain Road, (WRD 2) <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a ground sign. <br />The following variance is requested: <br />1. A 3'6" variance for a ground sign too close to right of way. (Code requires 5', applicant show <br />1'6"), Section 1163.26B. <br />Which is in violation of 90-125, Section (1163.26B). <br />Note: This variance request is the same as originally submitted on 10/28/04 for Board of Zoning <br />Appeals meeting and applicant has requested reconsideration. The Boazd of Zoning Appeals <br />tabled the request on 11/4/04, denied the request on 12/2/05, motioned to reconsider variance <br />request on 2/3/05, and postponed request on 3/3/05. <br />Mr. Weber the owner came forward to be sworn in and address his request. Mr. Weber thanked <br />board members for allowing him the opportunity to readdress his request. He felt that important <br />facts were left out of his original presentation. He zeviewed that the safety department viewed the <br />mock sign and found that the sign would not be a safety issue. His neighbors and customers all <br />signed a petition stating that they did not feel the sign would be an obstruction for vehicles line of <br />sight. He voiced that when the business was first constructed it complied with all zoning codes <br />including the pole sign. When he tried to work on his pole sign the zoning codes had changed <br />and he was told by the City he had to take out the pole sign. He removed the pole sign and put in <br />a ground sign and again codes changed and no matter where the ground sign is placed it will <br />require a variance. As it is he is hard pressed for parking so it is not feasible to remove a pazking <br />space for the sign. Mrs. Diver voiced her frustration that the size or placement of the sign had not <br />changed, as the applicant stated it would not be the same request when he petitioned to be <br />reheard. She feels that the sign does not need to be as wide as shown on the plans. The words <br />could be stacked to decrease the width of the sign. Mr. Weber did not feel a smaller sign would <br />give him the visibility he needs for his business. Mrs. Sergi reviewed that she was in agreement <br />with the applicant as there were no free parking spaces when she visited the site.