My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/22/1987 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1987
>
1987 Architectural Review Board
>
07/22/1987 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:30:58 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 3:32:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1987
Board Name
Architectural Review Board
Document Name
Minutes
Date
7/22/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
1- <br />ARCHI.TECTURAL BqARD QF REVIEW JULY 22, 1987 PAGE 2 <br />has been in.creased by shrubs, flowering crab trees, and ground cover. <br />A 40 square foot ground sign is shown on plan, but is not 7 feet off <br />the sidewalk, and must be relocated to conform to code. Eight parking <br />spaces are shown in front, but Mr. Neff explained that parking is only <br />necessary for new tenants and stated that he was advised by City Engineer <br />Schaller that there were no parking requirements for this type facility. <br />Mr. Pattison wanted it noted that there are no handicapped spaces pro- <br />vided and if in fact parking is just being provided for new tenants <br />and new business, it would seem that 8 spaces are excessive, and that <br />the Board would prefer to have more landscaping as opposed to more pav- <br />ing. If the developer can establish that 8 spaces are not necessary, <br />then the Board would prefer that they put in more landscaping and <br />landbank the additional spaces. Mr. Pattison also noted that the <br />building is set on the residential zone line in the rear and requested <br />clarification as to what the set back requirements are from the resi- <br />dential zone line versus the rear property line, and questioned the <br />lack of clarity in the ordinance as to whether this is a permitted use <br />in a retail district. B. Zergott moved to approve as presented with <br />changes noted per the building code and with the notation that the <br />ground sign must be moved to conform with the code, seconded by J. Britton. <br />Roll call on motion: Mr. Zergott and Mr. Britton, yes. Mr. Pattison, no. <br />2) Fotomat Corporation, 4665 Great Northern Blvd. <br />Proposal to construct a laboratory and sales building. <br />(Heard by Planning Commission ,Tune 23, 1987) <br />Mr. Robeson presented photographs of the same prefab ricated b uilding at <br />another location. Building will be white stucco with yellow, blue and <br />some red trim. Since building will be located in the parking lot, there <br />is no landscaping. Mr. Pattison suggested that in order to conceal the <br />mechanical units, they extend the white stucco material up approximately <br />30 to 36 inches on three side, (not on the rear since the sight lines <br />to the rear are fair.ly remote); or else, install lower units. D. <br />Pattison moved to approve subject to the agreement that a parapet would <br />be created to a height`within 6 inches of the top of the mechanical <br />equipment on the roof, or any other means: of concealing this mechanical <br />equipment, possibly using lower equipment, and to approve the signage <br />with the condition that the quanity of the signage be verified since <br />it would appear to be excessive, seconded by B. Zergott, and unanimously <br />approved. <br />3) Barlow Plaza, 30590 Lorain Road <br />Proposal to construct maintenance garage. <br />(Heaxd by Planning Commission June 23, 1987). <br />Mr. Acci_arri, architect, and the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Hayden, explained <br />that the pole b arn type structure will be covered with Texture 111 and <br />stained with -qclear finish and is to be used as a maintenance building. <br />Two parking spaces wi11 be used for the drive, but parking will still <br />conform to the code. Mr. Pattison is concerned that a standard type <br />vehicle could not get in or out of the building and suggested that it be <br />set further-off the sideline. Mr. Acciarri explained that it would <br />then be on top of the retention systeTn, since a tractor would be the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.