11/03/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' CITY OF 1oTORTgi OLMS'I'EI) BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS NOVEIVBER 3, 2005 MINTJTES Io 1tOLI. CAI.L: Chairman Maloney called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm. PRESENT: Chairman J. Maloney, Board members; W. Kremzar, T. Kelly, M. Diver and N. Sergi ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Law Director B. O'Malley, Building Commissioner D. Conway, and Clerk of Coaiunissions D. Rote. IIa ItEVIEW AIoTIi COYS1tEC'I'ION OF MINUT'ES: W. Kremzar moved to approve the September 1, 2005 Board of Zoning Appeals minutes as written. M. Diver seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. W. Kremzar moved to approve the October 6, 2005 Board of Zoning Appeals minutes as written. T. Kelly seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. Chairman 1VIaloney reviewed that there were 6 cases requesting 15 variances on the docket. He further advised that each board member had viewed the premises involved for each case. Three votes are required fox approval and in addition, each case would be judged on the physical situation peculiar to itself, so that in no way is a judgrnent rendered considered to be a general policy judgment affecting properties and like situations elsewhere. III. BUILDMG DEPE9.ItTMENT REQNESTS: OLD BUSINESS: • Target/Sagn Late; 24646 Ba°mokpark Roado (WIZI? 4) itequest for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new wall sign. The following variance is requested: 1. A variance for 3 wa11 signs on a building, (code permits 1, applicant shows 3). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1163.27 A). Nofie: 1). Total signage on the lot is not available with this applicatian. 2). Board of Zoning Appeals tabled the request on 7/7/05 and 8/4/05. 3). On 9/1/05 BZA granted 1 adclitional sign for west wall (pharmacy) and denied request for 1 south side wall sign. 4). Applicant was granted reconsideration for south side wa11 sign on 10/6/05. Board rnember M. Diver recused herself from the request and stepped down frorn the bench. Mr. Schiely the Architect, N1r. Rinker the Attorney, and Mr. Kalina with Adams Signs each came forward to be sworn in and address the reconsideration. Mr. Rinker thanked the board for allowing their request for reconsideration. The owner believes that the large size of the building, restrictive sign codes and the building fronting to the west linnits their visibility. The single curb-cut onto the limited highway (Broolcpark Road) significa.ntly impedes their visibility as the only means of egress is a considerable distance from the building itself. The front of the building faces west and measures 400 feet (+ or -) and the only entra.nce to the building is located at the North VVest corner of the building with the wall sign centered over the entrance. City codes pertaining to signage was quoted and referenced to a traffic study which was conducted iwo years earlier in regaxds to key intersections at Brookpark and Great Northern Blvd studying egresses, delivery of services and projected traffic pattems affecting the area. All parties involved including the ttaffic study believed that there should be two curb-cuts onto 1 of 7