Laserfiche WebLink
<br />M <br />owns the lots there will never be homes built on the lots. Mrs. Schimelpfenig suggested that the car <br />dealership across the street is empty and could be used to house KIA. Mr. Halleen advised that it was <br />not empty. Mr. Pacsuta indicated that he lives on the second lot and when he looks out every window <br />in his home he sees nothing but cars. He suggested that there were more issues that needed to be <br />addressed before the variance is granted i.e. lighting, Iandscaping, mounds and increased traffic. Mr. <br />Maloney indicated that the board could only vote on the use variance. Planning Commission will have <br />to address drainage, lighting, traffic issues and landscaping. <br />W. Kremzar motioned to arant Halleen KIA of parcels #232-10-025 and 232-10-024 their request for <br />a"use" variance (1123.12) to allow parking only and that the mounding is to be put in place as <br />presented in the plans. Mr. Maloney stated that the motion will include, "that upon approval of the use <br />variance. Be referred to the Planning Corrunission to review the mounding, planting, lighting, drainage <br />and truck requirements for the city". This is for parking only no other use is permitted. Which is in <br />violation of Ord. 90-125 section 1135.01. J. Konold seconded the motion. Roll call on the motion; J. <br />Maloney, W. Kremzar and J. Konold "yes" T. Koberna "no". Granted 10-4-01 Note: in the framing <br />of the motion Mr. Conway requested his department receive some type of documentation that relates <br />to the mounds so they know what they are dealing with. Mr. Conway asked the chairman to sign the <br />blueprints submitted tonight. <br />14. Bed, Bath, and Bevond; 25975 Great Northern Plaza <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of signage. The following variances are <br />requested: <br />1) A variance for a second wall sign-south elevation (code permits 1, applicant shows 2), section <br />(1163.27 A). <br />2) A 390-sq. ft. variance for maximum signage allowed for a building unit (code permits 120 sq. ft., <br />applicant shows 510 sq. ft.), section (1163.24 C). <br />3) A 2-ft. variance for height of a wall sign-south elevation (code permits 4 ft., applicant shows 6 <br />ft.), section (1163.27 C). <br />4) A 170-sq. ft. variance for maxiinum sign face allowable for a wall sign-south elevation (code <br />perinits 100 sq. ft., applicant shows 270 sq. ft.), section (1163.27 C). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, 1163.27 A, 1163.27 C and 1163.24 C. <br />Note: Revised data froin Board of Zoning Appeals July 5, 2001 meeting. <br />It was thought at that time, Bed, Bath and Beyond was utilizing all of the Home Place space. It has <br />since been revealed that they are now utilizing only 120 ft. of frontage vs. 199 ft. Therefore, the <br />variance from July 5, 2001 should read "Variance of 104 sq. ft. for maximum signage for a building <br />unit vs. the 25-sq. ft. that was approved". Variance 2 stands as written. <br />Also let it be noted that the painted portion of the south elevation wall sign has already been installed <br />in violation of section 1163.03 (sign installed without proper permitting) of codified ordinances of the <br />City of North Olmsted. <br />Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review their request. Mrs. Cunningham, <br />with Bed Bath & Beyond, Mr. Frye, with Bed Bath & Beyond and Mr. Collins, from Direct Image <br />Signs each came forward to be sworn in and review their request. Mr. Frye indicated that they are <br />asking for a 3-foot by 42-foot rear sign. Mr. Conway questioned if the applicant's dimensions <br />included the area of the building that they paiilted as the entire box is considered part of the signage. <br />He further indicated that the area painted was done so without a permit, which was required. Mr. <br />Frye answered "no" it was not part of the proposed sign. Mr. Conway commented that as the painted <br />area was not part of the signage it should have been removed and questioned why it had not been <br />removed. Mr. Frye suggested that he was not aware that they were required to remove the paint <br />from the rear wall. Mr. Conway questioned how that could be as his office had notified the applicant <br />10