07/02/1998 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? r a"rJ the neon. Mr. Foerester noted although in the daytime the building would appear the same during the evening hours the strip would not be visible as it would not be illuminated. He questioned if the board would accept the neon if there was a cover over it. Mr. Gomersall advised the neon would not be permitted at all. Mr. Kobema elaborated the reason it (tlie neon) is considered siguage is because it is intended to draw attention to the building. Mr. Conway and Mr. Buckendahl had concerns about the lighting flowing over to the abutting properties. Mr. Gomersall noted the lights are an item that should be addressed by the plauuiug commission as that is not part of the request before the board. The members discussed a motion. Law Director Gareau advised the write-up is inaproperly stated as one issue is to over rule the iuterpretation of the building commissioner and there is no such thing as a variance to over rule the building commissioners decision. It was noted #2 should not be iucluded as a part of the request. J. Maloney moved to uphold the building commissioners ruling that the 8 neon strips are used to direct attention to the bu.ildiug aud are therefore deemed to be signs. The motion was seconded by R. Gomersall and unanimously approved. Law Director Gareau advised that the board has in effect ; upheld tlie building commissioners decision. Mr. Foerester stated the maximum signage permitted is ?. 170 feet. The wall sign is 51 square feet and the monument sign is 41 square feet bringing the total amount of signage to 92 square feet which he believed conforms to tlie code. Mr. Rymarczyk confirmed, without the neon, Mr. Foerester's calcularions were correct. It was noted the following variauce request was inadvertently left off the write-up: a 6 foot variance of setback from the front right-of-way (Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.12-b). J. Maloney moved to grant Bakers Square Restaurant, 24025 Lorain Road, their request for a 6 foot variance (1123.12) for the setback from the front right of way, the code requires a pylon sign to be 10 feet from the right-of-way, whereas they are proposing a setback of four feet. Violation of Ord. 90- 125, Section 1163.12 (b). The motion was seconded by T. Koberna and unanimously approved. Mr. Foerester questioned if a sign permit can be issued on Tuesday. Mr. Rymarczyk clarified the building departmeut cannot issue a permit until after this returns to planniug commission, The clerk noted the submittal will also have to go before council, after planning commission, for final approval. Plauning commission will be meeting on July 14, 1998 at 7:30 P.M. The clerk requested clarification on the outcome of the request for neon on the build.ing. Chairman Gomersall advised the neon was denied as the building commissioners ruling was upheld. The clerk questioned if the architect has made any revisions as a result of recommendations made by planning commission. Mr. Foerester coufirmed no changes have been made since the original submittal before plauuing commission. Mr. Rymarczyk stated revised plans will be needed reflecting the removal of the neon sign strip. Mr. Koberna stated if the neon strip is replaced with an EFIS strip, as recommended by architectural review board, that should also be reflected on the revised submittal. 9) Larry and Janet Diehl, 6190 Brig,hton Road Request for variance (1123.12). Request a 3 foot total side yard variance and an 8 foot fr&t setback variance to construct porch. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section(s) 1135.07 and 1135.06. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was admivistered to Mr. Streiter (representing the contractor), Mr. Deihl (owner), and Mr./Mrs. Saunders (neighboring residents). There were no questions raised. T. Kobema moved to grant Larry and Janet Diehl, 6190 Brighton Road The following variances (1123.12): a 3 foot total side yard variance and an S foot front setback variance to construct porch. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section(s) 1135.07 and 1135.06. The motion was seconded by J. Maloney, and unanimously approved.