09/09/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF NORTH OI,MSTED "TOGliETHER WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE" BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL5 SEPTEMBER 9, 2004 MINUTES I. ROLL CA,LL: Chairman Maloney called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. PRESEloTT: Chairman J. Maloney, Board members W. Kremzar, N. Sergi and T. Kelley. ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Law Director B. O'Malley, Assistant Building Commissioner T. Rymarczyk and Clerk of Commissions D. Rote. Prior to the start of the meeting Assistant Law Director Bryan O'Malley administered the oath of office to ilew Board of Zoning Appeals member Maureen Diver. Chairman Maloney reviewed that there were 12 cases requesting 24 variances on the docket. The chairman advised that the boara members had viewed the premises involved for each case. Three votes are required for approval. In addition, each case will be judged on the physical situation peculiar to itself, so that in no way is a judgment rendered considered to be a general policy judgment affecting properties and like situations elsewhere. II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES: ' The Board of Zoniiig Appeals minutes dated August 5, 2004 have been submitted for approval. W. Kremzar moved to approve the August 5, 2004, Board of Zoning Appeals minutes as written. J. Maloney seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. III. BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUESTS: Bank One; 4763 Cireat Northern Blvd.: (WRD 4) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of new sign. The following variances are requested: 1. A variance for 3 ground signs on a lot (note: #1), (code permits 1, applicant shows 3), section (1163.26 A). 2. A 12.5 foot variance for a ground sign too close to a side property line, (code requires 20', applicant shows 7.5'), section (1163.26 B). 3. A variance for a traffic hazard (sign located within 35' triangle), (code does not permit 0', applicant shows 1'), section (1163.17 A). 4. A 152 faot variance for ground signs too close together, (code requires 200', applicant shows 48') section (1163.26 A). NOte: # l. This includes an existing multi tenant sign and an existing pole sign. #2. Changed variaiice required to 1 directional sign only. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1163.26 A), (1163.26 B), and (1163.17 A). Chairman Malone>> called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. Belknap with Mc Sign came forward to be sworn in and address the proposal. The applicant presented a photo of the existing sign a.ud indicated that the sign proposed will be smaller then what is currently at the site now. The sign although it will be a directional sign by code is considered a monument sign. As there is already a monument sign on the site it requires a variance. The applicant stated that he could move the prcposed directional sign back 3-feet so that it is not within the triangle. Mr. Rymarczyk questioned why the applicant waited until the meeting to present the sign being moved. He also questioned where the applicant was measuring the center of the right-of-way from as he did not believe moving it back only 3-feet would take it out of the triangle. The board questioned why the owner or tenants were not present as requested. Mr. Belknap replied that the tenants hired his company to represent them. The applicant believed that the ground sign would be 3-feet outside the