02/11/1998 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3. Sunnvside Toyota, 26890 Lorain Road. Request for variance (1123.12). Request the following variance to install 3 wall signs: Request 3 inch height variance for wall sign #1. Request variance to install 3 wall signs. Request 54.84 square foot variance for maximum sign area permitted. Violations of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1163.12(a) and 1162.11(a). Notes: 1) Pole signs and directional signs are existing and all non-conforming. These signs should have been removed no later than 1/1/98. 2) Building originally had 125 square foot of signage (Mazda 53 square foot and Toyota 72 square foot). New signage on bu.ilding, if variances are granted, would equal 105 square foot for a reduction of 20 square feet of building signage. 3) Directional signs are non-conforming as follows: Directional sign 1 and 2 verbiage, name is included; Square footage of sign, 3 square foot allowed, has 6 square feet Setback from right of way - 10 foot required, is 6 foot. Directional sign #3, Square footage of sign, 3 square foot allowed, has 6 square foot. Height of sign, 3 foot allowed, is 6 inches high. Vice-Chairmau Maloney called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to: Mr. Frye and Mr. Bizjak. Mr. Bizjak, sign contractor, presented the proposal. Mr. Frye, representing the dealership, explained this remodel is in conjunction with the corporate image for Sunnyside Toyota. Previously there were two signs on the building, however this proposal includes three signs. Law Director Gareau questioned what will happen to the pole sign. Mr. Frye stated at this time there is a lot of controversy swirling about pole signs in North Olmsted, and he has talked to other businesses in the city. He further explained, there has been some conespondence to the city concerning where the pole sign ordinance is going and he hoped that the pole sign will not be reflected in the fascia sign issue. Mr. Gareau suggested tabling the proposal as Sunnyside Toyota is in violation of the ordinance and he did not understand how they could come before this board and ask for a variance when they are in violation right now with the pole sign. He stated although there are people out there questioning the validity of the City's sign ordinance, this has not been questioned in the courts. Mr. Gareau fiuther explained there is a Supreme Court Case in the State of Ohio that upheld the ordinance in the City of Lakewood. He noted North Olmsted's sign ordinance is modeled after the City of Lakewood's sign ordinance. Mr. Frye stated he is not an attorney and does not have an understanding of the sign ordinance, however he does understand there are many businesses questioning how the ordinance will be enforced. He clarified he has not yet received a notice of any violation. Mr. Gareau stated Sunnyside Toyota is in violation and Mr. Frye is presumed to know the law. Mr. Frye stated that the controversy surrounding the pole sign will be going on for some time. He asked the board to consider approving the building signs and if necessary he will come back and request a variance for the pole sign. Mr. Gareau explained he could instruct the prosecutor of the City of North Olmsted tomorrow to pursue cri.minal violations against the business owners that are in violation. He has decided to take a different route and the building department is going out and preparing for the law department to pursue legally people that are in violation. Mr. Gareau stated the sign ordinance issue has been in all the news papers and the Chamber of Commerce has made business owners aware of the ordinance. What some people are doing is simply waiting and it seems ludicrous, Mr. Gareau continued, for the board to approve such a proposal when the representative has readily admitted they intend to continue to violate the pole sign ordinance and at the same time request a variance for the building signs. Mr. Purper also questioned why the 3