11/04/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- • have a logo. They are appealing the decision of the Building commissioner and seeking an additional sign. ? Mr. Gareau indicated that he did not agree with the proposition that the city should indicate that applicants can not have logos. Note: At this time the Board went into a consecutive session. Mr. Gomersall indicated that the board would treat the proposal as two separate requests, one for the logo and one for the sign. Mr. Gomersall asked Ms. Tang to ask Ms. Thai what she would be doing with the eYisting pole sign once the name is changed. Ms. Tang indicated that Ms. Thai would put the new name on the pole sign. Mr. Gomersall indicated that the applicant would need to come back to address the pole sign as it was not submitted for tonight's meeting. Mr. Koberna indicated that there were too many signs. Mr. Gomersall repeated that the applicant had not applied to change the pole sign and would have to subinit the request to the Build'u1g Department for review. Ms. Thai suggested she did not have to change it she would just leave it the way it is now. Mr. Gareau indicated that the applicant was indicating that she would have two different names for the business. Mr. Kremzar questioned how many signs were being addressed. Mr. Gomersall indicated that the applicants wanted a logo on the West Side of the building. A wall sign on the front of the building and a pole sign. Mr. Kremzar indicated that that would make 3 different variance requests. Mr. Gomersall indicated that if all tlie requests where not addressed the applicants would have to return next month for the other signage. Mr. Rymarczyk commented that the applicants seemed to be addressing two signs on a pole, which would probably need a variance for square footage depending on the square footage of the building. Mr. Gomersall commented that since the signage for the pole sign was not requested the board did not know the dimensions of the building and it could not be addressed. He questioned if the applicant understood what he was eYplaining to her. Ms. Thai indicated that she understood. Mr. Gomersall indicated that the proposal would be tabled until neYt month when the applica.nt could have her proposal in order. Mr. Konold suggested that Ms. Thai sit with someone from the building department to make sure she tmderstood what she was requesting, befare she returned as it did not seem as if she knew what she wanted. R. Gomersall moved to ta.ble Yumrriy Kitchen of 26625 Brookpark Road until December, and that the existing signage could be maintained until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by J. Konold and unaiumously approved. Proposal Tabled. Note: in the framing of the motion the clerk inquired if the applicants were working with a sign company. Ms. Thai indicated that they had hired a sign company. The clerk recorrunended that the applicants have a representative from the sign company go with them to the Building Department as well as attend the December meeting to make sure there is no further misunderstandings. 11. Fish Furniture; 23770 Lorain Road: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of add'uig new fagade. The following variances are required: A special pernut to add to a non-conforming building, section, (1165.02), 1) A variance to enlarge a non-conforming building, section (1165.02 B 1). 2) A 75 foot variance for front setback, (code requires 75ft, applicant shows 0), section (1139.07). Note: Although shown on the attached drawing are 8 new parking spaces at the rear of the site, this in NOT being requested for at this time. Wluch is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections, (1165.02 B1) and (1139.07). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward, and reviewed the variances requested. Mr. Yager, the architect and Mr. Artwell, from Fish Furniture came forward. Mr. Yager reviewed that the exiting buildings would be attached and in order to do that the front facade would need to be brought forward. The new front would be 1-foot, from the property line. The parking will remain as it currently is now. The existing fence will be continued across the rear property line and no additional parking will be made at this time. Mr. Koberna commented that the new front would be only 1-foot from the sidewalk. Mr. Gareau suggested that the applicants did not have much choice as to what they could do to attach the two buildings and enhance the appearance of their building. Mr. Rymarczyk questioned if the two lots that currently house the buildings would be consolidated. Mr. Yager indicated that the owners would request that the lots be consolidated. No further comments were made. 7