Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward and reviewed the variances being <br />requested. Mr. Michele, from Brilliant Sign Co. and Mr. Durfey, the owner, came forward to <br />review their request. Mr. Gomersall commented that he did not think the request was written <br />correctly as the pole sign is presently existing. Mr. Michele indicated that the pole sign is being <br />replaced because a truck hit the existing sign. Mr. Gareau commented he believed that would be a <br />problem. If the sign is more than 50% damaged, he does not believe the provisions that the City <br />agreed to in their litigation are applicable. When Office Max's pole sign fell down they wanted to <br />put it back up and they were not allowed. Mr. Durfey indicated that the pole sign did not fall, the <br />top of the sign was hit with a semi-truck, the pole is notbroken. The top of the sign is just bent. <br />NIr. Gomersall questioned if a new pole sign would be put in place to replace the existing sign. <br />Mr. Durfey answered `no' it just needs to be fixed. Mr. Gareau reviewed that that was different. <br />If the applicants are goin? to remove one sign and replace it with a new sign they can not do that, <br />but they can fix the existing sian. Mr. Gareau -questioned if the owner was sure that they were <br />just replacing the cams that would be fine. If the applicant is talking about taking the whole thing <br />down, that needs to be discussed. Mr. Michele corrunented that the pole would not be removed <br />only the sign so that it could be fixed. Mr. Gareau commented that the ordinances of the City <br />read, that when you have a non-conforming sign or structure that becomes necessary to replace it <br />because it is more than 50% damaged. The owner then has to come into compliance. Mr. <br />Gomersall then commented or seek a variance. Mr. Gareau indicated that the City is holding back <br />on the pole sign issues because the City is treating them as it does not exist. If a sign was <br />knocked down and had to be replaced, that moratorium with respect to the litigation does not <br />apply. Mr. Konold questioned if the sign was damaged enough to need replacing. Mr. Durfey <br />indicated that the bulbs are broken and the frame has a couple of dents. Mr. Michele questioned if <br />it would be O.K. to take the sign down to repair the existing sign. Mr. Gomersall su?gested that <br />would be all right, and questioned if the applicants understood that if the City won its case the <br />pole sign would have to be removed. Mr. Durfey indicated he understood. N1r. Gareau <br />commented that if the owners wanted to put up a lower pole sign that was visible underneath, but <br />still considered a pole sign. The applicants could entertain that and if the City wins the law suit <br />they could have their variance despite that fact. If the applicant wanted to pllt up a lower <br />structure they could. Mr. Durfey commented that they could not put a lower sign on the site. <br />Mr. Gareau reviewed that there was an applicant that had a 60 foot wide, with driveways that you <br />can not see. The board allowed them to have a modified pole sign with the stipulation that cars <br />could see underneath the sign. Mr. Gomersall indicated that he was going to change the request <br />from install to repair. Mr. Rymarczyk questioned if the sign was more than 50% of the cost of a <br />new sign, if so, that was the reason the applicants were before the board. Mr. Michele indicated <br />that it would cost less than 50% of a new sign. They will just have to take the sign down to repair <br />it and then put it right back. Mr. Gomersall reiterated that the wording of the request would be <br />changed to read: 41 to be changed from installed to repair, and 92 to be changed to installing to <br />repairing. Mr. Maloney questioned if the sign would remain the same size. Mr. Durfey remarked <br />that it would be the same sign, it is just being repaired. No further comments were made. <br />7. Konold motioned to grant Ten Minute Lube of 25715 Lorain Rd their request for variance <br />(1123.12), as amended and agreed upon. Which consists of a pole sign and that the following variances be <br />granted: <br />1) A variance to repair the existing pole sign, (code prohibits pole signs), section (1163.12). <br />2) A varia.nce far repairing a sign within a triangle, (code states no sign shall be allowed within a triangle <br />formed between points on the front and side street right-of-way lines within 35 feet from their intersection), <br />section (1163.04). <br />9