09/07/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

j , D . ?pernuts 30 inches, applicant shows 60 inches), section (1135.02 (F) (2)). 2) A 58 foot variance for fence over 50% closed (code permits under 50% open, applicant shows over 50% closed), section (1135.02 (F) (1)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, 1135.02 F 2, and 1135.02 F 1. The motion was seconded by, W. Kremzar and unanimously approved. Variances Granted. 11. Ameritech with Cico a Si r?is; 25170 Lorain Rd Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a sign package. The following variance is requested; 1) A variance to alter a non-conforming pole sign (code requires sign be brought into compliance, applicant shows replacing sign face).. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections; 1163.10 (C): Any non-conforming sign for a property or premises that undergoes a change of use (permitted), as that term is defined in this Zoning Code, shall be brought into compliance with all of the provisions of this Chapter and all other applicable City laws and ordinances. 1139.01: Change of use. Went from service establishment (photographer) to retail business (selling cellular phones). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, 1136.10 C and 1139.01. Chairman, Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. The oath was administered to Mr. Jim Locke from Cicogna Sign Company who came forward to review the proposal. Mr. Maloney commented that they are missing a site plan, which is needed to indicate to the board where the sign is in comparison to parking spaces and what not. 1VIr. Gareau suggested that one of the problems Ameritech has is that under the new sign code it is a change in the type of business. This board is requiring that the sign come into confornuty and without a site plan, the applicant can not show the board they have a hardship. Mr. Locke commented that they do in fact have a hardship and presented pictures of the sign to the board. Mr. Gareau responded that the pictures do not help show the location of the sign or the location of parking spaces, which could be causing the hardship. Mr. I,ocke suggested that they only want to replace the Images face on the sign with an Ameritech face. Mr. Koberna questioned what happened to the top box on the sign. Mr. Rymarczyk believed that Work-in-Gear is in the top horizontal box on the sign. Mr. Locke commented that what the new code requires them to do is conduct a detail survey of the land and Ameritech doesn't want to invest $2000 to $3000 for a survey. The sign cost less then that to put in place. He then commented that he had a letter from the owner of the plaza stating that he did not have a problem with the new sign being put in place. Mr. Gareau reviewed that when Council adopted the ordinance to remove all pole signs there was. an Amortization Provision, saying that everyone had to take the pole signs down, which was _ what fueled a law suite. The District Court has since ruled that you have no constitutional right to a pole sign. The objective was to get rid of the pole signs. In the new sign code, it is meant to amortisize signs just simply by attrition and you as applicants are in an attrition situation here. Mr. Locke commented that he understood what the city is trying to do, but he doesn't think the owner understands. Mr. Gareau explairied that if it were a pizza parlor and a new pizza company moved in, it would be o.k. to change the face. Granted both Ameritech and the Photographer are retail businesses, but they are completely different types of . use. He suggested Mr. Locke ask Ameritech if they would like to come back with plans in , , relation..to how?.many'_parking' spaces there are, and if they wanted to come into conformity. He , strongly suggested that the board request some sort of a plan to show where the sign is located, k' so a determination of whether or not it is a hardship can be determined. , J. . Maloney moved to have a sealed plan by an architect or engineer with respect to sign 7