03/04/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. A 12.5 foot variance for ground sign (location from side lot line), (code requires 20 ft., applicant shows 7 ft. 6 inch), section (1163.26 (B)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1163.17 (A)), (1163.26 (A)), and (1163.26 (B)). Note # 1 This request for spacing between existing ground sign and new grounds sign. Note # 2 This request for spacing between new ground sign and new ground (directional) sign. Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. Belknap with the SiM Company came forward to be swom in and review the request. Mr. Belknap reviewed that the bank image is changing and the pole sign is being removed to put in a new ground sign. However, neither side of the driveway allows for a 35-foot triangle. Building Commissioner felt that the first proposal showed 16-feet from the right of way. The applicant can move the ground sign to a parking space, eliminate the need for a sign variance, and request a variance for a parking space which for safety reasons he would prefer. Mr. O'Malley felt that Bank One should be commended for bringing down a non-conforming sign. However, the property owner and owner of Bank One should be present as they are the ones with the authority to make that decision. The applicant voiced that he did not have authority to move the sign so he will need to return. N. Sergi motioned to table Bank One; (PP# 236-05-050) of 4763 Great Northern Blvd. nnd are welconned to return next month W. Kremzar seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. Request Tabled 15. Y,aketec Communications; (PP# 235-07-009,010), 27881 Lorain Road: Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a ground sign. The following variances are requested: 1. A variance for New ground sign (pole type), (see note 91), (code permits none, applicant shows 1), section (1163.3). 2. A variance for installing pole sign in 35 foot triangle, (code does not permit, applicant shows sign in triangle), section (1163.17 (A)). 3. A 4 foot variance for ground (pole) sign setback, (code requires 5', applicant shows 1'), section (1163.26 (B)). 4. A use variance for parking & storage of cars, (code does not pernut, applicant shows storage of cars), section (1139.01 (b)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1163.3), (1163.26 (B)), (1163.17 (A)), and (1139.01 (b)). Note # Under definitions (1163.02 (g)), new sign will allow vehicular clearance and sign has more than 20% overhang of base. Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. Little, the owner, Mr. Aftoora, with the Sign Company, Mrs. Botson, and Ms. & Mr. Schmitz, neighbors each came forward to be swom in and review their request. The applicants felt that if their ground sign was built to code it would create safety issues for the site. They would like to stay in line with the other existing signs and off the easement. Building Comnussioner felt that as the triangle is developed on the other side of the driveway it would not block visibility of cars exiting the site. The applicants would like to be allowed to have the skirt 2-feet wide so it will not block the view of cars entering and exiting the site. The pole will be 8-feet high the sign 4-feet high for a total height of 12-feet. The board requested an explanation regarding parking cars. The applicants reviewed that they would be leasing rear area parking to a car dealership. He is not sure why it requires a variance. The following residents N1rs. Botson, Ms. & Mr. Schmitz voiced the following concerns; 1). Semi trailers on the site all hours of the day and night. 2). The volume of noise from trucks and speakers on the site. The owner tried to assure the residents that he would not allow any trailers or semi trucks on the lot. 3). Concerned regarding the lights from the site shining into their windows all night. 4). The neighbors do not want to see and hear the sites business- taking place throughout the night and day. Building Commissioner reviewed that the applicant is not allowed to store cars on his lot. Employees can park on the site as well as patrons and the owner but storage of cars is a different use. The board indicated that they would first address flle signage issues then address the parking use request. The board members suggested a gate be erected to block the cars from being moved throughout the night. 7