10/07/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

granted a variance it does not supersede the requirements of the engineering restrictions or their codes. Mr. & Mrs. Akpo-Asambe withdrew their variance request. 3. Republic Bank; 26777 I.orain Road: WRD 4 Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of changing an existing pole sign. The following variances are requested: 1. A variance for changing a non conformation pole sign, (code does not permit, applicant shows one), section (1163.10 (c)). 2. A 1 1/2 foot variance for a sign too close to right of way, (code requires 5 ft, applicant shows 3 '/z'), section (1163.26 (b)), (see note 1). 3. A variance for 2 ground signs on a lot, (code permits 1, applicant shows 2), section (1163.26 (A)), (see note 2). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1163.10 (C)), (1163.26 (A) &(b)). Note: 1. Existing pole sign is 1 foot into right-of-way. Proposed change will bring it 3'/z feet away from right-of-way. 2. Applicant is not requesting to add another ground sign, only change & improve existing sign. 3. Overall height of sign 22 feet. Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. Blevins with republic Bank, and Mr. O'Reilly, with Apax Signs each came forward to be sworn in and address the proposal. The applicant believed they tried to relocate the location of the sign and the owners have rejected placing the ground sign in any other area. They would like to use the existing pole and modify the new sign on the pole. The power box at the base of the sign will be removed and a new power box placed on back of the new sign. The sign is needed for visibility from traffic traveling from west to east. Applicants submitted a letter from the owner stating they would not allow the proposed pole sign to relocate as disclosed nor could a parking space be used for a sign. Mr. Conway voiced that the board has been trying to have the owners of multiple tenant complexes come in to address one sign package for their site and this owner has continued to ignore the boards request or the applicant is not forwarding the message. The building deparhnent would like to see any sign issues for this site under one sign package. Mr. O'Malley reviewed that the board has requested at each meeting for the owners to come before the board to address the signs for all tenants. There are a number of tenants in this building and the board has voiced a concern about the signage and if the owner does not address total signage every tenant will come in one at a time demanding signage. He advised the board that it is the burden of the applicant to show hardship and the board is to uphold today's codes and there could be a ground sign in the same location. The spirit of the code is to curve the number of non-conforming signs. Mr. Blevins stated that the existing trees would block any type of ground sign. The existing sign protrudes into the parking lot and the owner does not want to lose any parking spaces. There is no area to place a gound sign. He sated that the board has never requested the owners of the building attend a meeting. W. Kremzar moved to grant Republic Bank; 26777 Lorain Roacl their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of changing an existing pole sign and that the following variances are granted: l.A variance for chamging a non conformation pole sign, (code does not permit, applicant shows one), section (1163.10 (c)). 2.A 1 1/2 foot variance for a sign too close to right of way, (code requires 5 ft, applicant shows 3 '/Z'), section (1163.26 (b)), (see note 1). 3.A variance for 2 ground signs on a lot, (cocie permits 1, applicant shovvs 2), section (1163.26 (A)), (see note 2). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1163.10 (C)), (1163.26 (A) &(b)). Note: 1. Existing pole sign is 1 foot into right-of-way. Proposed change will bring it 3'/2 feet away from rcght-of-way. 2. Applicant is not requesting to add another ground sign, only change & improve existing sign. 3. Overall heigltt of sign 22 feet. J. Maloney seconded the motion which was unanimously deniecl. Note: after roll call of the motion, Mr. O'Malley advised the board to create a case-finding report for the reason the variances were denied. The board can compose it themselves or they have to option of requesting the law department construct the report. Mr. Maloney stated that the variances being requested were substantial and exceeds the code by 10