My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/02/2009 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2009
>
2009 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
04/02/2009 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:47:10 PM
Creation date
1/25/2019 6:20:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2009
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
4/2/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
Mrs. Sergi did not feel the garage would be detrimental to the neighborhood as it would not be <br />visible. The garage will provide an added security, improve the lot and will not affect <br />governmental services. Mrs. Bellido and Ms. Rudolph voiced no objections to the request. Mrs. <br />Diver said the variance on paper seems substantial but in viewing the size of the lot the garage is <br />not as substantial as it appears. The gat•age will not adversely affect abutting neighbors or the <br />character of the neighborhood. A garage to code could be constri.icted but there are safety issues. <br />The spirit and intent of the code would Ue upheld granting the variance. <br />Mrs. Sei-gi moved, seconded by 1VIrs. Bellido, to gi-ant Robert Thomas of 26650 Butternut <br />Itidge a 474 square foot variance for size of a detached garage; code permits 750 sq ft, <br />applicant shows 1224 sq ft, which is in violation of section 1135.02(C)(3) provided the <br />eYisting shed is removed upon completion of the gai•age, which was unanimously approved <br />4-0. <br />NON-RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS <br />Halleen KIA; 27726 Lorain Road <br />Request for variance (1123.12), the proposal consists of a third wall sign. <br />The following variances are requested: <br />1. A variance for 3 wall signs on a building (Note 1); code permits 2, applicant shows 3, section <br />1163.28(a). <br />2. A 40 square foot variance for total signage on a building (Note 2); code permits 74 sq ft, <br />applicant shows 114 sq ft, section 1163.25(b). <br />Notes: <br />1. The west wall sign is a preexisting 37 sq ft (4'2" high) sign which BZA approved 12/2001. <br />The south wall sign is a 26 sq ft logo which building approved 12/08/08 and the proposed second <br />wall sign for the south elevation is 51 sq ft. <br />2. Allowable building signage is 74 sq ft. <br />3. The 12/2001 variance allowed 2 wall signs totaling 85 sq ft, which is 11 sq ft over what code <br />allows for the building and permitted the west logo sign to be 2 inches higher then code allows. <br />4. On 12/2008 building issued a permit to remove the existing 48 sq ft logo box sign on the south <br />elevation and replace it with a new logo sign, bringing the total square footage of wall signage to <br />63.4 sq ft, which is 11 sq ft under what is allowed by code. <br />5. The 4/2009 variance request is to add a second wall sign of 51 sq ft on the south elevation. <br />Mr. Bellcnap with Agile Sign & Lighting was sworn in and said their company was hired to <br />complete the sign installation. Mrs. Diver noted KIA owner's absence from the meeting and <br />letter submitted giving Cummings signs approval to apply for a variance. She aslced Mr. <br />O'Malley to address the owner's absence. Mr. O'Malley reviewed the board's rules of <br />procedures pertaining to owner's attendance by reading the section of the rules. Mr. Bellcnap <br />suggested he had presented requests on his own before and felt the request should be addressed. <br />Mrs. Diver said that she was uncomfortaUle addressing the request without the owner being <br />present. Mr. O'Malley said regardless if an applicant had been before the board without a <br />property owner in the past it is at the board's discretion as to how they address each case. All <br />board members said that they wanted the property owner present when addressing the request. <br />4
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.