02/04/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

application with Developers Diversified conforming to the old code, in which he received a letter from Developer diversified indicatuig they didn't want to review the signage as they are in litigation with the City of North Olmsted. Developer Diversified indicated the preliminary plans that are going through the City is the overall height size of 3' foot 6"inches aud currently code states 2'foot 6"inches. He believes his customer needs the variance to at least be seen from the inter road that goes through the plaza. No further questions were asked. W. Kremzar motioned to approve Holcombs Knowplace, of 25913 Great Northern Shopping Center, their request for variance (1123.12), and that the following variance be granted. A 27.5' square foot variance for maximum sign face area of a business unit. (code permits only 37.5' square feet, applicant requests 64.5' square feet. Which is in Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.1(a). The motion was seconded by, J. Konold and unanimously approved. Variance Granted. 13. Halleen Olds.. Inc., 27932 Lorain Road; Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consist of a sign package. The following variances are requested: 1) A Variance to reface an existing prohibited pole sign #2 (1163.12 (a)). 2) A variance to reface a non conforming sign (#2). Code states that the entire sign shall be brought into compliance with all of the provisions of the zoning code (1163.19 (a)). Which is in Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections (1163.12 (a), and 1163.19 (a). Note: Had dlis sign been a pylon it would have needed a variance for setback, and number of free standing signs, which the code limits to only one, and square footage for free standing signs. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward and reviewed the variances being requested. Mr. Halleen came forward to present Halleen Olds proposal. Mr. Gomersall questioned if the intent of the applicant was to just reface the existing signage. Mr. Halleen suggested Mr. Gomersall was correct. No further questions were asked. J. Maloney motioned to approve Halleen Olds., Inc., of 27932 Lorain Road their request for variance (1123.12), and that the following variances be granted. 1) A Variance to reface an existing prohibited pole sign #2 (1163.12 (a)). 2) A variance to reface a non conforming sign (#2). Code states that the entire sign sliall be brought into compliance with all of the provisions of the zoning code (1163.19 (a)). Which is in Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections (1163.12 (a), and 1163.19 (a). Note: Had this sign been a pylon it would have needed a variance for setback, aud number of free standing signs, which the code limits to only one, and square footage for free standing signs. The motion was seconded by, W. Kreinzar and unanimously approved. Variances Granted. This variance is granted only as to the specific relief requested. The City is currently involved in a federal lawsuit and has agreed not to enforce its prohibition against pole signs until the lawsuit is resolved. Should the lawsuit resolve in favor of the City, your pole sign will be unlawfully non-conforming under City law and will have to be removed uiiless you obtain another variance at that time. 14. Norwalk Furniture; 25313 Lorain Road: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of adding logo's to canopies. The following variance is required: A variance for 6 canopy signs. They are requesting 7 canopy signs whereas the code permits only one. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125, section (1163.12 (d). Note: Heard by Plannulg Commission 12/8/98, and 1/12/99, also heard by the Architectural Review Board 12/16/98. The Planning Commission recommends that the canopy signs (logo) not be allowed. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward and reviewed the variances being requested. Mr. Schill, came forward to present Norwalks proposal. Mr. Gomersall review that Norwalk is asking for 7 canopy signs, they are allowed 1 and need a variance for 6 additional logos on the canopy. Mr. ,15