My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/10/2002 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2002
>
2002 Planning Commission
>
09/10/2002 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:48:58 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 5:53:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2002
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
9/10/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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 />want the applicant to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals before going to the Architectural Review Board. <br />The motion was seconded by W. Spalding and unanimously approved. Proposal tabled. <br />Great Lakes Piano• 26800-04 Lorain Rd.: <br />The proposal consists of interior and exterior remodeling of an existing building for a new tenant, <br />including a new sign. Note: Variances are required. <br />Chairman Koeth reviewed the proposal and variances and called all interested parties forward. Mr. <br />Robert Gallagher, the property owner and tenant, came forward to address the board. He indicated he <br />purchased the former House of Lamps building and is looking to update and replace the farade. The <br />property has been vacant for approximately two years and the current fagade is rotting. They will replace <br />all of the signage and take the same space. There will not be any major additions to the property. They <br />will update what is there. Mr. Gallagher showed the board members a rendering of the site. Mr. <br />Spalding asked if it is the entire shopping strip he is referring to. Mr. Gallagher mentioned there is an <br />auto shop next door and indicated there are two different properties in the strip. He does not own the <br />auto shop. Mr. Koeth asked if there is any consideration on the part of the auto shop owner to comply <br />with what Mr. Gallagher is doing. Mr. Gallagher said not at this time and he pointed out the buildings <br />are not attached. Mrs. O'Rourke asked about other tenants in the strip. Mr. O'Malley pointed out that <br />Sante Fe Tanning just went into the west end of the building owned by the auto parts store. Mr. <br />Gallagher mentioned there was a pole sign that was removed by the seller. He showed the members a <br />color rendering of the sign they are proposing. W. Koeth said they are over the allowed limit in their <br />signage request. He recommended they eliminate the red neon. Mr. Gallagher said their architect <br />suggested some type of highlighting that would match the design of the new Ruby Tuesday restaurant <br />that is adjacent to them. There are a considerable number of light poles and an easement there between <br />both of the properties. They have a considerable amount of landscaping there with high trees. His <br />concern was that they have something there to set the building off a bit to catch peoples' attention since <br />they only have the one sign. The traffic in that area is rather heavy and the store comes up quickly. A lot <br />of their customers are elderly and they are looking for something that would meet the city standards yet <br />still highlight the building. Mr. Gallagher said if they cannot illuminate it, perhaps they can add some <br />additional lighting to the frontage, or maybe just paint it on there. Mrs. O'Rourke pointed out they could <br />back light a stripe. Neon is not recommended. Mr. Koeth said eliminating the neon light would take <br />away one of the variance requests. He asked how long the sign on the top of the building will be. Mr. <br />Gallagher indicated it is 29 feet long. The board members reviewed the plans and discussed the signage. <br />Mrs. O'Rourke said with the neon gone, they have the sign on the front and the ground sign. Mr. <br />Gallagher confirmed they would be down to two signs. Mr. Koeth mentioned there are two sconces on <br />the wall that are different. Mr. Gallagher commented the posts are all existing and will not be changed at <br />all. They support the overhang. He referred to the drawings and pointed out the existing lighting and <br />then the changes they will make. He mentioned the architect found they could re-use the existing <br />fixtures. They are brass and look quite nice. Mr. Gallagher confirmed they will use the second drawing <br />for the proposed lighting. Mr. Koeth inquired whether or not they will install columns. Mr. Gallagher <br />said what is there now is bare steel and they will enclose them in fluted wood. The fluted columns will <br />match the interior, which will also have columns. Mr. Koeth asked for confirmation that they will sand <br />blast the brick. Mr. Gallagher indicated they will sand blast and the color will be the same color; it is a <br />red brick. Mr. Koeth asked if he has material samples. Mr. Gallagher replied he does not have any <br />currently but the architect is flexible on that, and they have been working with the building department. <br />Mr. Koeth indicated they would like to see some samples and at least a coloring of the brick to see how it <br />matches with what is currently there. He would like to see that and an example of the stucco. Mr. <br />Gallagher asked if it will be required that they have to sand blast the brick. Mr. Koeth replied that they <br />should do it and they want to be sure the colors match or come in close. He asked if they will sand blast <br />the side of the building as well. Mr. Gallagher confirmed that they will. Mrs. O'Rourke asked if the <br />color in the drawing for the ground sign is the correct color. Mr. Gallagher replied it is accurate and the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.