04/04/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1163.10 (c)), and (1,163.24 (a)). Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. Robert LJhlin, the - property owner, Mr. Brett Smith of Direct Lnage Signs, and Mr. David Hanna of New World Mortgage, came forward to be sworn in. Mr. Maloney pointed out the applicants are looking to have a sign for New World Mortgage, the Barber Shop, and Fun Pools. Mr. Uhlin explained that the Fun Pools sign is existing. Mr. O'Mal.ley said the code sectiori 1163.10, nonconforming signs, talks about any non-conforming sign for property or premises that undergoes a change of use (permitted) as that term is defined in the zoning code, shall be brought into compliance with all the provisions of this chapter. The variance is essentially allowing the non-cc,nforming pole sign to have a face change granted. He added that the sign code was written with a provisioil that would allow the city an opportunity, when there is a change of permitted uses, that is from one tenant to the next, to try and cause the non-confornung sign to be brought into compliance. Mr. Maloney riointed out that the board understands that, but considering the location of Mr. iJhlin's property, for them 1:o put a ground. sign in would be a hazard for people traveling on the neighboring street. He added thai. the proximity of the building on that lot makes it difficult to establish the parameters the way the sign code is today. So this is an unusual situation. Mr. Konold agreed and said the board must make its own deter.mination. Mr. Maloney reviewed the location and background of the property. He mentioned the previous variance that was granted for additional parking because of the nature of the property. Mrs. Sergi added a person wouldn't be able to get out on to Lorain Road. Mr. Maloney asked if Mr. O'Malley was suggesting; they change the way it is written. Mr. O'Malley said no; it may have been appropriate for the applicant to explain that justification. It might be within the applicant's ability to propose some improvements to the sign above and beyond what has been presented. He just wanted to alert the board to its authority and also to the intent of the code. He said you see a lot of multiple tenant pole signs with changeabli-I copy signs that, as the tenants come and go, you see some uniformity in the face changes that take place. He mentioned a case that went before the board last month. He said as this board is the only forum for these matters to be reviewed, once they go beyond the interview that they may or may not have with the 13uilding Department, this is the only opportunity that this board, or any board, will have to examine tliose issues. W. Rymarczyk said it would be nice to have the sign be uniform, whether it be all one color or not, but that is up to the applicant. Mrs. Sergi asked the applicant if that was something that could be considered. Mr. Uhlin indicated they are using red for the purpose of better visibility. Mr. Smith pointed out that the pool sign was already there. W. Krem:,.-ar motioned to grant Robert LThlin, of 29454-29462 Lorain Rd., his request for variance (1123.12) which consists of a sign.and that the following variances be granted; 1). A variance for change of use of a non-confornung pole sign (code permits 0, applicant shows 1), section (1163.10 (c)). 2). A 10 square foat variance for excessive square feet of signage for lot (code pernuts 157 square feet, applicant shows 16; square feet), section (1163.24 (a)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1163.10 (c)), and (116-3,24 '(a)). The motion was seconded by N. Sergi and unanimously approved. Variances Granted. 12. Nortli Olmsted Collision Center; 28415 Lorain Rd.; Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of ground sign. The following variance is requested: 1. A 1 foot 5 inch variance for a ground sign closer to the right of way than permitted (code requ'ires 5 fee:t, applicant shows 3 feet 7 inches), section (1163.26 (b)). Whicli is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1163.26 (b)). Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. Mike Bizjak of Brilliant Signs, ancl Mr. Pat Kovalchuk of North Olmsted Collision, came forward to be sworn in. Mr. Bizjak indicated t:hey need a set back variance. They would like to utilize the existing masonry base that was put 10