07/06/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

14. Brooklor Center25905-26035 Lorain Rd. Request for variance 1123.12. The proposal consists of an accessory structure along Lorain Rd. The following variances are requested: l. A 68 foot 6 inch variance for front yard setback (code requires 75 feet, applicant shows 6 foot 6 inches) section 1139.07 2. A.10 foot variance for side yard setback (code requires 10 foot, applicant shows 0 foot) section.1139,07. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section 1139.07. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward to review the variances requested. The oath was administered to Mr. Grendell, the Attorney for the applicant, and Mr. Soclof, with Stark EnterprisesBrooklor whom came forward to review the request. Mr. Grendell presented the board members with excerpts of minutes from 1990 and 1991 and correspondences to and from the building department in 1998 and 1999, regarding the signage located on the site. In 1998, the Building Department told the owners of the property that they could not replace a fallen pole sign as it was out of code. His clients have had to go without an entrance sign since that time. He reviewed what each of the conespondences allowed and did no allow. The sign code was declared unconstitutional this year and while the sign code was being declared unconstitutional his client applied for a building pernut to erect a pole sign. The Building Department gave his clients a building 'permit for the sign. On May 31, 2000 his client received a letter informing him that he should not have received a permit as the sign would be located within the required 75foot setback. After the permit was issued, his client spent quite a bit of money ordering the sign. The owner's property is situated between Lorain Road and Brookpark Road and they believe that they can show practical difficulty. Mr. Grendell reviewed other signs along Lorain Road that he felt must have needed variances. The owners d'o not believe that the sign will hinder the character of the site or other properties situated around them. The size of the sign is in line with the existing signage in the area. Mr. Gareaiz indicated that the sign permit was issued when the city was in the process of adopting the new sign code. As the City did not have a sign code at the time the issue was looked at as being a structure, therefore the 75foot setback provisions applied. Under the new sign code the applicants don't have to be back 75feet, but because they would need other variances for square footage and things of that nature they have chosen to address their request as a structure. Mr. Conway remarked that while the City had no sign ordinance in place signs were addressed as structures governed by, The Ohio Basic Building Code. Mr. Gareau questioned if the new sign code was applied to the current sign what variances would be needed. Mr. Conway indicated that that would depend on the square footage, which had not been calculated or supplied. Mr. Koberna suggested that the sign looked like it belonged in Vegas. .Mr. Maloney suggested that because of the driveway location and other safety issues the sign would need to be raised at least lOft off the ground. Mr. Conway questioned if the requirements of the new sign ordinance was a mute issue or not, adding that the sign area was roughly twice what was now allowed. Mr. Grendell indicated that the new sign would be 40sqft smaller 14