My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/17/1989 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1989
>
1989 Architectural Review Board
>
05/17/1989 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:31:29 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 4:37:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1989
Board Name
Architectural Review Board
Document Name
Minutes
Date
5/17/1989
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
ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MAY 17, 1989 <br />PAGE 3 <br />Mr. Tonich, designer, and Mr. Patel, owner, explained that because the <br />motel wi11 now be a Day's Inn, they will have to get approval from the <br />motel chain after their approval from the city, so they may have to <br />return_to the b.oards. They also explained that while they are renovating <br />the building, they are also trying to disassociate the motel from the. <br />adjacent restaurant which is on the same property. In order to do this, <br />the metal roof.facing on the motel will be a Weyerhaeuser Horizon Blue <br />and the roof facing on the restaurant will be a nutmeg brown. They will <br />be washing the brick and redecorating the rear balconies by painting the <br />doors an English Red (Porter Paint Company 34015), using the same blue <br />facing on the railings, and adding a shielded florescent surface mounted <br />globe light on the wall at every door. Mr. Patel explained that the top <br />part of the existing sign with the flashing arrow would be removed and <br />a standard Days Inn sign would be installed in its place. He was advised <br />that this Board could only approve the concept of the sign, and that he <br />must contact the Building Commissioner to get approval for conformance <br />to the codes. Mr.. Gallagher stated that the Board had no problem with <br />the concept of the sign. Board had no objection to adding two more lights <br />to the parking lot and Mr. Gallagher stated that these 75 watt mercury <br />vapor lights should cause no problems since they are lower than the build- <br />ing and far away from abutting properties, but he did suggest that they <br />could use a metal high light instead of the mercury vapor. Mr. Zergott <br />suggested that some low planting be included in the plan and suggested <br />that they use 2 taxus hicksi, 7 taxus densiformis with annuals in front <br />of the shrubs. Mr. Zergott stated that there are some landscaping areas <br />behind the restaurant which are not visible_and would not have to be ap- <br />proved by the board, but he suggested that they do something there. <br />Mr. Pate1 also stated they might put some planting along the fence. T. <br />Gallagher moved to approve the plans as submitted, subject to the approval <br />of the sign by the Building Commissioner, to approve the lights as <br />planned as long as the height is not exceeded, either mercury vapor or <br />metal high light, and with the condition that Mr. Zergott will approve <br />the landscaping plan prior to the Planning Commission meeting, seconded <br />by B. Zergott, and unanimously approved. <br />VI. ADJOURNMENT: <br />The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. <br />B. Zergott, Acting Chairman B. Oring, Clerk of Commissions
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.