07/02/1998 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? Section(s) 1163.04 (h); 1163.04 (K); 1163.11 (a & b); and 1163.12 (a & b& e) 1139.07 and 1161.10. Please note recommendations were made by planning coinmission (Jun.e 9, 1998), architectural review board (June 17, 1998), and the engineering department (7une 15, 1998). - Chairmau Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to: Mr. Tyson (representing Donato's Pizza), Mr. Gatten, and Mr. Nowak. Mr. Tyson explained the varia.nce requests. He noted the pylon sign was needed to comply with parking requirements and the size so that it is visible from the main street. Mr. Tyson continued the changeable copy will be utilized mainly to advertise community activities as his company has a reputation for getting involved in community activities. Mr. Gomersall noted planning commission recommended that the driveway comply with the ordina.nce and be 90 degrees to Lorain Road. Mr. Tyson confirmed they have complied with that request and the Lorain Road access will be 90 degrees to that street. The Canterbury Road access, however, does include a request to have a driveway that is not 90 degrees to Canterbury Road. Assistant Building Commissioner Rymarczyk confirmed this was referred by planuiug commission to the city traffic engineer and the traffic engineer recommended that the Canterbury access remain at an angl.e as planned. There were no furtlier questions. T. Koberna moved to grant Donato's Pizza, 26170 Lorain Road, there request for the following signage variances (1123.12): 1) A variance to install a pylon sign within a triangle formed between points on the front and side street right-of-way lines within 35 feet from their intersection; 2) A variance to have a 6 foot by 2 foot section of the pylon sign be changeable copy; 3) A variauce of 7 square feet in sign face area for the pylon sign; 4) -A 1 foot variance for height of the pylon sign; 5) A 26.5 square foot variance in maximum business signage; 6,) A 19.5 square foot variance in maximum building signage; 7)?- A variance to install a second wall sign; and 8) A 2 foot variance in property line ! (North) setback for directionals #1 and #2. Also grant the following variances (1123.12) for items other than signage: 1) A 7 foot front yard setback; 2) An 8 foot side setback variance on corner lot; and 3) A variance to have a driveway off Canterbury Road that is not to be ninety (90) degrees to the street right-of-way. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section(s): 1163.04 (h); 1163.04 (K); 1163.11 (a) & (b.); 1163.12 (a), (b), &(e); 1139.07; and 1161.10. The motion was seconded by J. Maloney and unanimously approved. The clerk announced the proposed Donato's Pizza will return to planning commission July 14, 1998 and then it will be sent on to council sometime in August. 8) Baker's Square Restaurant, 24025 Lorain Road Request for variance (1123.12). Request the following signage variances: 1) The Building_ Commissioner has ruled that the 8 neon strips are.used to direct attention to the bu.ilding and are therefore deemed to be signs; 2) A variance to over rule the build.ing .commissioners decision to disallow the 8 neon signs (three are facing north, two west and three are facing east); 3) A variance of 20 square feet of signage for business use; and 4) A variauce of 17 square feet of signage for free standing use; 5) A 6 foot variance for setback of pylon sign from right-of-way (as amended to include - #5). Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.03; 1163.16 (d); 1163.11 (a); 1163.12 (b). Please note recommendations were made by plauning commission (May 26, 1998) and architectural Leview board (June 17, 1998). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to: Mr. Foerester (Director of Architecture), W. Stepanek (General Manager), W. Conway, and Mr. BuckendahL Mr. Foerester argued that the neon is a light band rather than signage as the building commissioner has ruled. Mr. Gomersall stated his opinion is the building commissioner is correct as this type of neon is considered signage. He was not in favor of permitting this neon band. Mr. Maloney pointed out in the June 17, 1998 architectural review board minutes the board recommended that the neon strip be eliminated and a red EFIS strip be put in its place on the monument sign. He questioned if this strip could also be used on the building in place of