04/05/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

T replied that he thinks that is how they granted it last time. There is a large sign on the other building in the back which was for Mr. Triammerschmidt's business. All the rest of the tenant spaces where given ground sign markers at their entrances. Mr. Konold questioned how many feet this property is away from North Olmsted's new bus garage. Mr. Hammerschmidt replied about 100 ft. from this proposed piece and they literally butt up against the existing Fieldstone piece of property. Mr. Konold questioned if the building department was O.K. with all of the discussion on this. Mr. Rymarczyk replied yes, basically all the items have been covered. Mr. Maloney commented that after the Board of Zoning Appeals this proposal would go back to Planning Cominission. Mr. Cerny replied correct. J. Maloney motioned to grant Fieldstone Development at S/L 11 Industrial Pkwy. their variances as requested with the exception of Number 12 and 13 which are withdrawn from this request. W. Kremzar seconded the motion and was unanimously approved. Granted Varianees #1-11. Variances 12 arad 13 are Wfthda°awno 4/5/01 W. Kremzar motioned to grant Fieldstone Development at 31333 Industrial Pkwy. the variances as requested. J. Konold seconded the motion and was unanimously approved. Gi•anted Vas-iances 415-17. 4/5/01 8. Consol'gciated 1VIgrnt.q Ince; 26404 Lorain Rde Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of continued sign package. Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. The oath was administered to Jim Kerr, the Vice President, who came iorward to review the proposal. Mr. Kerr commented that they have a new signage plan submitted for the entire building. There will be no signs on the side of the building. They are limiting every tenant to one sign, which would make a total of five.signs on the building. The entue building wall signage will be 90 sq. ft. Mr. Kremzar questioned if the signs wouldn't be changed until the tenant changes. Mr. Kerr replied that he is willing to try to commit to that. TrIe commented that he believed he could get 4 of the tenants to change in the z-elatively near future. Mr. Kremzar questioned what about the extra window signs that are everywhere. 1VIr. Kerr replied that if the board could explain the code to him he would try his best. He showed a picture of the Karate Studio window, which depicted a few people practicing karate. If this particular sign is one sign and it is less than 10 sa. ft. and it includes less than 25% of the space of the glass pane, it's O.K.. If however, if that is conceived as two signs and they are within two feet of each other then they are not allowed. If it's less than 10 feet it doesn't even need a variance. He then commented that he honestly 'didn't know how to interpret that. Mr. Gareau commented that is why we have a building department. Mr. Rymarczyk commented that in this case the entire window would be squared off and figured as signage. Mr. Kerr questioned if it would be counted as one sign or two. Mr. Rymarczyk replied one sign. Mr. Kerr commented that if it is one sign it doesn't even need a variance. Mr. Itymarczyk replied it does for total square footage of what you're allowed for the building. Mr. Kerr replied that is his problem. 1VIr. Gareau questioned if these were temporary window signs. Mr. Rymarczyk replied these are more permanent. Mr. Kerr commented that he would interpret it as a permanent sign, but if that is in fact one sign and that is 25% or less than the volume of this particular pane it is legal. Mr. Kelley commented that the sign is not 25% it looks like more. Mr. Kerr replied that he had not measured it. Mr. Konold questioned if the tenants who rent from him request that he put these signs in their windows. Mr. Kerr replied no, they are simply putting these up in their windows without even consulting him. When he asks them they say they don't even need a variance for that. Mr. Rymarczyk questioned if he could control it as the owner. Mr. 7