11/07/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, 2. A 27.6 square foot variance for total signage on a lot (code permits 113.4 sq. ft., applicant shows 141 sq. ft.). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1163.24 (a)). Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review their request. Mr. Niswander the Manager came forward to be sworn in and address the request. There is an existing sign and an open face on the sign they would like to just replace the sign. There is an existing freestanding pole sign, which has an open box that Domino's would like to use. Mr. O'Malley suggested that the pole sign involves the owner and other tenant's this is really an issue for the landlord to address. The board has an opportunity to address the owner regarding installing new sign, which complies to the codes. Mr. Niswander suggested that he was not aware that the landlord was against their request. Mr. Conway suggested that the owner gave permission to the tenant. The law department is suggesting the owner should be representing his property. That would give the City an opportunity to address a new sign, which complies to code. Mr. O'Malley suggested that it would be an opportunity for the board to request the landowner address his non-conforming sign. Mr. Niswander suggested that there are parking issues on the front of the site. It would be hard to place a ground sign on the site. Mr. Maloney felt that there would be a hard ship if the sign is brought to the ground. Mr. Conway reviewed that only one parking space would need to be eliminated to accommodate a ground sign. A monument sign can be as high as 10 feet, so there could be 3 feet open and then the sign would clear the height of most cars. Mr. Niswander suggested that he was not sure if the owners would be open to a ground sign, but they would like to get their sign in place before they open. He suggested that they would paint the existing sign. Mr. O'Malley suggested that if the board wants to hear from the owner of the site to address bringing the sign into code this would be the time. Mr. Conway suggested that the tenant put pressure on the owner to bring the sign into code. Mr. O'Malley suggested that if the board denies the variance request then the owner would have to address his sign. J. Konold motioned to grant Domino's Pizza of 26120 Lorain Road their request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of pole sign face change and that the following variances are granted: 1. A variance for change of use of a non-conforming pole sign (code does not permit). 2. A 27.6 square foot variance for total signage on a lot (code permits 113.4 sq. ft., applicant shows 141 sq. ft.). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1163.24 (a)). N. Sergi seconded the motion. Roll call on the motion; J. Maloney, J. Konold and N. Sergi, "Yes", W. Kremzar and T. Kelly "No". Variances Granted. 13. Barnes Sewing; 24355 Lorain Road; Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new sign face replacement. The following variance is requested: 1. A 9 square foot variance for total signage on a building (code permits 175 sq. ft., applicant shows 184 sq. ft.). Note: Barnes Sewing is moving from a smaller unit to a larger one and proposes to use existing sign box for their new sign. This change constitutes a change of use. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1163.24 (b)). Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review their request. Mr. Yankovich, with Elliot Sign Company came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Yankovich suggested that the tenant has expanded and there is an existing sign that they would like to reface. The new tenant will now be using two spaces. The proposed sign is under the maximum square footage for a tenant space, as well as the square footage for signs on the property. The sign is over for the overall size of the sign on a building. The tenant would just like to reface the existing sign. Mr. Conway indicated that he had no objections to the request. 9