My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/25/1997 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1997
>
1997 Planning Commission
>
02/25/1997 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:33:33 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 9:30:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1997
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
2/25/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
?• <br />the planting area are not on the property and would be removed in order to install the pylon sign. There <br />are wall packs ou the bu.ilding. A double door will be installed on the side of the building. which wil <br />serve as a delivery door. Regarding the variances, Assistaut Building Commissioner Rymarczyk advisec. <br />that 26 parking spaces would be required for tlus size development; the building would be over the <br />permitted 25% coverage of the lot; front, side, rear building and parking setback variances would be <br />needed aloug with sign variances. Mr. Kline stated that the whole side of the property on David Drive <br />ended up being a curb cut, and they were going to have two, one at the delivery area aud one toward <br />the front with landscaping in-between. Mr. Brenuan wondered how they kept the storm water on their <br />own property when the down spouts were on someone else's land. The dumpster will be on the side of <br />the building, next to the receiving doors. Members discussed plans individually. It was clarified that <br />deliveries were not made by semi tractor trailers; that there is a muffler shop next door; and that the two <br />parking spaces ou the side of the building would be for employees. W. Herbster questioned if they <br />needed both drives on David Drive. Mr. Kline stated that they ueeded both drives in order to separate <br />tiuck traffic from cars. Nli•. Tallon suggested that they move some of the parking back in order to <br />increase the front landscape buffer to 20 feet wluch would eliminate one variance. The members <br />believed that tliere must be an easement for the encroaclunent of the down spouts and air conditioner. <br />Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that they should get permission if there is not. W. Kline stated <br />that they could design the addition so that the water would not be dumped on the adjacent property. <br />Mr. Tallon noted that there were three options: if they build the addition as shown, they should submit <br />sometlung in writing to show that they have permission from the adjacent land owner; the could reduce <br />the addition to allow for the gutters; or change the flow of the water. Mr. Kline stated that they could <br />redesigu the building to keep the water on their property, either by interior drains or keeping the roof <br />back. Mr. Tallon stated that that would be fine, but they could not dump their storin water on someone <br />else's property. City Engineer Deichmann stated that there would have to be underground retention fo; <br />the addition. Mr. Kline agreed. Regarding the variances, Mr. Rymarczyk stated that they would need a <br />variance for not having a truck loading zone. There would not be enough room to put it in front of the <br />double doors, because they would have to maintain an aisle for cars to drive past it. It was clarified that <br />their deliveries were not by semi's, just panel trucks similar to UPS trucks. Mr. Herbster again <br />suggested that they remove the rear drive, but it was pointed out that there would be no way for a truck <br />to get in to empty the dumpster. Ttie dumpster will be enclosed with a board on board fence. Iu <br />reference to the sigu, it was determined that the sigu would be 220 square feet, and it would need a <br />variance of 175 square feet over what is allowed. There is also a logo wluch is considered to be part of <br />the siguage, aud would need approval from the architectural review board. It was detei7nined that they <br />were set back 81 feet fi-om the sidewallc. Even though only the letters are illuminated, the members <br />believed tlus was an extremely large sign. Mr. Kline camiot agree to removing the logo without talking <br />to the client, but he stated that if it would mean not getting the sign, it would be more importaut thau to <br />have the name. He thought that they could put the logo inside the building. Mr. Rymarczyk advised that <br />if it can be seen from the right-of-way, it would still be couuted as signage. 1VIh Kline stated that they <br />could put it bebind the sales comer. Tlie members discussed reducing the sigu so that it conformed. The <br />existiug sigu is probably about 35 feet long and about 4 feet high. Mr. Ryinarczyk advised that, because <br />there is a side street, 75 square foot signage would be allowed, tlus sigu is 242 square feet with the <br />logo. He further advised that if this sign is non-couforming it will have to come dowu on January 1, <br />1998 unless it is exempted. Mr. Brenuan stated that with a ground sign, he did not thiuk they would <br />need tlus large a wall sigu. Mr. R}nnarczyk stated that a ground sigu could be 50 square feet on one <br />side, and a pylon sigu could be 56 square feet. Mr. K1ine stated that they would have to reduce thf <br />heiglit because the intent is to relate the glass and the sign to create au arclutectural connection betweei <br />the two elements to make it uito a store frout facade. Mr. Rymarczyk did uot thiuk that the building <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.