12/02/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to whether or not Mr. Lockner feels there is an encroachment, that issue has to be taken up with him and the owner next door. The board can not make a determination of who is encroaching and who is not. He further commented that if the abutting neighbors feel that the flooring center is encroaching their property, they need to take it up with the owners of the property not Vital Signs. Mr. Lockner questioned how would, the applicant put up the sign as we will not allow them on the property. Ms. Lengle indicated that they could put the sign on from the roof and it would only stand out 4 inches. Mr. Scher commented that the old tenant had a sijn in the same location and they were forced to take it down. Mr. Koberna remarked that the sign was out of code. Mr. Scher commented that he was aware that the codes had changed in the past 7 years. He is just concerned that the sign would be on his property. Mr. Koberna indicated that the board could not address if the Flooring America building is on Mr. Scher's property or not. Mr. Scher remarked that there was a fence put in along the back of their property by the car cleaners. Mr. Gareau suggested that the CO-Trustee's should not let the issue go too long. If a company puts up a sign and it is on someone else's property the owner of the other property should address the issue right away. Mr. Gomersall suggested that is between the owner and the neighbors not the board, as they can only address the sign. Mr. Scher questioned if the sign would encroach their property. Mr. Koberna indicated that if the signs are allowed the board will stipulate that the sign can not exceed 4 inches. Mr. Gareau suggested that the owner of the building should make sure that the sign will not encroach the abutting property as the Courts not the City will make them take it down. The Chairman reiterated that the board could not be involved on whether or not the building is on someone else's property or not. This board can only vote on whether or not the applicants should be allowed to put a sign up on their own property. Ms. Lengle commented that the total square footage of the signage is below what is allowed by code for this building. The variance is needed because there will be 3 signs, 1 sign will be on the east side of the building, 1 on the west side and 1 on the front of the building. There could be a 4-inch aluminum sign box used to make sure the sign does not extend beyond the 6 inches. The applicants would like the signs so they can be seen from passing cars in all directions. Mr. Koberna questioned if the square footage was below what is allowed. Mr. Rymarczyk commented that the applicants were under the allowable square footage, they just need the variance for the 2 additional signs. No further comments were made. T. Koberna motioned to grant Flooring America of 27178 Lorain Rd, their request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of additional wall signs and that the following variance be ?ranted: A variance to add 2 additional wall signs, (code permits 1, applicant shows 3). Wluch is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1163,12 A). The motion was seconded by J. Konold and Unanimously approved. Variance Granted. 6. Backdraught: 24775 Loraui Rd. Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of signage. The following variances are requested: 1) A 21 square foot variance for a wall sign, (code pernuts 28.5sqft, applicant shows 49.5sqft), section (1163.11 b). 2) A variance to reface an insert on a prohibited pole sign, (code requires sign brought into compliance, section (1163.19 a). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections, (1163.11 A and B). Note: these signs were refaced without obtaining pernuts (1163.16). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward and reviewed the variances being requested. Ms. Goebel, the owner, came forward to review her request. Mr. Gomersall indicated 7