My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/16/1987 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1987
>
1987 Architectural Review Board
>
09/16/1987 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:30:58 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 3:32:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1987
Board Name
Architectural Review Board
Document Name
Minutes
Date
9/16/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
ARCHITECTiTRAL BOARD OF REVIEW SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 2 <br />will remain, and they may add a sign to the mansard at a later date. <br />The area below the windows will also be brick and any of the remaining <br />white procelain tiles will be painted. A 6 foot cedar board on board <br />fence will be installed on the rear property line and will also be <br />used to enclose the dumpster on three sides. Mr. Conway would like <br />the dumpster relocated to the side of the building. This would be <br />adjacent to-the garage doors and not possible. Mr. Zergott stated :it <br />was not very noticeable from the street. Mr. Pattison pointed out that <br />the existing garage doors are at different heights, and believes that <br />the mansard should be returned further on the west side. He suggested <br />that they could merely recoat the existing aluminium window frames and <br />use the existing store front in order to save on the cost and extend <br />the mansard; or perhaps not use the brick below the windows and re- <br />surface the procelain. Mr. Cook pointed out that the windows were old <br />and inefficient, that the west wall was not visible since the adjacent <br />building on the west obscured it. He further explained that they do ', <br />have plans for future renovations, but these will have to be done in <br />phases because of the cost factor. B. Zergott moved to approve as <br />presented with the notation that the white panels will be painted to <br />match the bronze material, seconded by J. Britton. Roll call on motion: <br />Zergott9 Britton, and Case, yes. Mr. Pattison, no. <br />3) Dr. Adams Medical Building, property west of 30691 Lorain Road <br />Proposal to construct medical building. <br />Heard by Planning Commission September 8, 1987. <br />Dr. Adams, owner and Mr. Dixon, architect, presented plans and color <br />elevations explaining that there will be an 80 foot front set back, <br />with a ten foot landscape buffer along Lorain Road. Building will have <br />a cedar fish tail siding above the windows and the remaining siding <br />will be a Shaker Town horizontal Cedar which is to be sealed with a <br />clear finishy roof will be a hand split cedar shake shingle, and there <br />wi11 be a white facia band across the front and white Permashiled <br />window frames will match it. Building Commissioner Conway advised that <br />the roof material must be treated so as to be fire retardent. Mr. Dixon <br />explained that they are planning to keep as many of the larger trees as <br />possib le, that landscape buffers are larger than required, but the <br />landscape plan is not eompleted as yet. It was suggested that since the <br />Board relies on Mr. Zergott's opinion regarding landscaping, that the <br />developer meet with him for his input, so that a complete landscape <br />plan may be presented to Planning Commission at the next meeting. Mr. <br />Zergott stated that he has already spoken with the forester who was <br />pleased with.the number of trees that were being saved. No signage is <br />being presented at this time, but will be forwarded to the Board later. <br />In reference to the Planning Commission recommendations that the parking <br />be reduced to 20 spaces with only one driveway off Lorain Road, Dr. Adams <br />statedthathe now has 13 parking spaces with a much smaller building; <br />he has 4 employees now and will be adding an associate, and wi11 be <br />renting office space to another professional person (not necessarily a <br />doctor) and if he is allotted only 5 spaces per doctor, he would onl_y <br />have 1 space for his patients. He believes that for safety purposes he <br />needs the two drives for easy access, and pointed out the drives are 165 <br />feet apart which exceeds the code requirements. Mr. Pattison stated that <br />it is Planning Commission`s jurisdiction to recommend additional greenspace
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.