My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/07/2018 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2018
>
2018 Building and Zoning Board of Appeals
>
05/07/2018 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:45:58 PM
Creation date
1/24/2019 9:31:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2018
Board Name
Building & Zoning Board of Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
5/7/2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
l. A 3 ft. variance for building height; 25 ft. allowed, applicant shows 28 ft.; Section <br />1139.04(b). <br />2. A 9 ft. variance for buffer zone depth; code requires depth of 20 ft., applicant shows 11 ft.; <br />Table 1139.06-3. <br />3. A 1 ft. 91/4 in. variance for distance of site light to a residential property line; code requires a <br />30 ft. setback, applicant shows 28 ft. 23/4 in.; Table 1161.10-1. <br />4. A variance for exceeding maximum illumination for open parking lots; code allows an <br />average of 2.0 foot-candles with a maximum of 5.0 foot-candles at any point, applicant <br />shows an average of 3.0 foot-candles with a maximum of 5.6 foot-candles; Section <br />1161.10(e)(3). <br />5. A 133.75 sq. ft. variance for building sign area; code allows 96.23, applicant shows 229.98 <br />sq. ft.; Section 1161.25(b). <br />6. A variance for 1 additional ground sign; code allows l, applicant shows 2; Section <br />1161.27(a). <br />7. A variance for 3 additional wall signs; code allows 2, applicant shows 5; Section 1161.28(a). <br />8. A variance for wall sign height; code allows 4 ft., applicant shows 2 signs at 4 ft. 63/4 in. and <br />2 signs at 8 ft.; Section 1161.28(c). Note: Blue Falls signs on south and west elevations are <br />each 4 ft. 63/a in., Menu Board signs are each 8 ft. <br />Mr. Aspery said the applicant is proposing to construct a new car wash facility on the site of the <br />former Ultimate Wash, requiring a number of setback, lighting and signage variances. The lot <br />has primary frontage on Lorain Road and secondary frontage on Gessner Road with one <br />driveway along Lorain Road providing access to the site. Note that variances 5 through 8 should <br />read Section 1163, not 1161 as written. <br />Mr. Certo stated that the building height variance is needed to conceal the roof-top mechanical <br />unit. The nine foot variance for the drive would improve the stackability and circulation of <br />vehicles on the property. The third and fourth requested variances can be eliminated with the <br />revised site and lighting plans in which a light pole will be relocated and the max foot-candles <br />will be below 2.0. The additional signage is needed to provide adequate signage for customer <br />safety and circulation. The second ground sign is needed to allow for the monument sign along <br />Lorain Road and a directional sign that is ground-mounted. Three additional wa11 signs are <br />requested for directional signs. The height requirement for the eighth variance is for the <br />corporate standard sign. The menu sign at the pay station will need to be eight feet high. Mr. <br />Umek added that the total square footage of the signage is about 57% of the total allowed <br />signage because they are not proposing a sign on Gessner Road. Mr. Hughes was concerned <br />about the buffer between the proposal and his property to the east. Mr. Certo showed Mr. Hughes <br />that the buffering on the side of the property abutting the proposal will be in compliance and the <br />variance request is for the west side of the property. <br />Mr. Aspery asked that the applicant submit updated plans showing that the third and fourth <br />variances are not needed. The Planning Department is happy that the applicants have been able <br />to remove some variances. Mr. Allain asked if an additional ground sign is approved then they <br />could place it anywhere on the property. Mr. Gareau stated the applicant showed it on the plan in <br />a specific location but they could install it in a different location. Mr. Papotto did not think the 8 <br />foot signs would present an issue. Mr. Allain pointed out the odd shape of the property and
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.