12/03/1998 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CTTY OF NORTH OLMSTED "TOGETHER WE CAloT MAKE A DII+'FERENCE!" . BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - DECEMBER 3, 1998 I.. ROLL CALL: Chairmau Gomersall called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Cha.irman; R Gomersall, Commissioners; J. Maloney, T. Koberna, J. Konold, and W. Kremzar. ALSO PRESENT:. Law Director Gareau, Assistant Building Commissioner Rymarczyk, Assistant Clerk of Commissions O'Connell, and Clerk of Commissions Rote. II. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES: J. Konold moved to approve the November 5, 1998 minutes as written. The motion was seconded by W. Kobema, and una.nimously approved. Motion Carried. Chairman Gomersall advised that each case would be judged on the physical situation peculiar to itselt so that in no way is a judgment rendered considered to be a general policy judgment affecting properties a.nd like situations elsewhere. 1. Douglas Tothman, 3878 Evelyn Drive: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal is to add a family room to e}risting home. Request the following variance: A 10' foot rear yard setback variance (1135.08 (a). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125, section (1135.08 (a). WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT PRIOR TO DATE OF MEETING. 2. Pro-Con ; 26400 Lorain Road: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposed Sign package. Request the following variance(s): 1) A 14' square foot variance for total business unit signage. ( 1163.11 (c)). 2) A variance to install 2 wall signs. (only 1 is permitted.) ( 1163.12 (a)). Furthermore Pro-Con is appealing the building Commissioners decision to have the Logo's (2 cell phones) removed from the signs, as recommended by the Architectural review board. (1163.16(D).) Wluch is in violation of Ord: 90-125, Sections 1163.11 (c), 1163:12 (a), and 1163.16 (D). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was adiniuistered to Mr. Antal, own.er of the business. Mr. Gomersall questioned Mr. Antal as to why he was appealing the decision of the building commission to remove the logos from the sign. Mr. Anta1 felt that the logos pertained to the nature of his business and made the sign more appealing. Mr. Gomersall questioned Mr. Antal about the sign colors, lighting and size. W. Antal inclicated the sign would be unlighted, the lettering would be yellow and background blue to match the neighboring sign. Mr. Gomersall questioned Mr. Rymarczyk if the building commissioners decision to have the logos taken off the sign, were because of the Architectural Review Boards recomm.endations. W. Rymarczyk indicated it was the recommendations of the Architectural Review Board and aLso the Building Commissioner Conway. Mr. Gareau inclicated to the commissioners that Federal Laws prohibited them from not allowing businesses to use trademark logos on their sign, and city codes would need to be changed at some futuxe date. Mr. Gareau suggested to the commissioners this 1