My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/20/1991 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1991
>
1991 Architectural Review Board
>
03/20/1991 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:31:56 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 5:48:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1991
Board Name
Architectural Review Board
Document Name
Minutes
Date
3/20/1991
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
.--` y <br />from headlights as suggested by Planning Commission. After some discussion <br />with the developers and the `owner of one of those homes, it was decided that <br />the developer's landscape architect discuss this with the owners and present <br />these plans.to the Board for'their approval. It was clarified that this would <br />not necessarily hold up the project, the members would approve the plans <br />individually and then these approved plans could be submitted either to the <br />Planning Commission or to the B.Z.D. Committee, depending on how fast the <br />developer gets the information to the Board. It was decided *hat there are 3 <br />homes across from the drive that would be affected. Mr. Bollinger stated that <br />he is committed to do this, but is concerned that the neighbors would not be <br />happy with any plan, in order to hold up the plans. The neighbor who was <br />present stated that he thinks he would accept a plan that was approved by the- <br />Board, but noted that his home will be devaluated because the drive is <br />directly across from the drive. and he is trying to compensate for his- loss.: . <br />Mr. Gallagher stated that the proposal would proceed through the various <br />meetings and the Board cannot tellthem what to put, on someone else's <br />property; and since he is trying to work something out, he should not be held <br />up. The neighbor agreed that the developer had agreed to do it, but he has no <br />idea what this landscaping will look like. The Board, the developers, the <br />neighbors and Councilman McKay discussed mounding and buffering. The <br />neighbors were adamant that there should be a board on board fence. Mr. <br />Kaczmar stated that the garages and green area would buffer the residences and <br />that a board on board fence would be over-kill. One resident suggested moving <br />the garages onto the single family land in order to give the Clague Road <br />residents a deeper buffer. He was advised that this would require a variance. <br />Councilman McKay agreed that the houses on Clague Road did not have a large <br />buffer like the ones on Mastick Road had. He has also surveyed all the <br />adjacent residents and all of then wanted a solid fence. After a great deal of <br />discussion it was agreed that a 5 foot high wolmanized board on board fence <br />caould blend in with the area and could be installed on the property lines and <br />that mounds could be installed along the both entrance ways with additional 5 <br />to 6 foot high evergreen trees planted 10 foot on center. The neighbor next <br />to the drive an Clague agreed that the mound next to his house would be <br />satisfactory. The_neighbors adjacent on the western side of the property also <br />wanted a board on board fence and pointed aut that the drainage ditch that is <br />there now is a natural barrier, but if it is closed in as recommended by the <br />Engineering Department their back yards would be opened up to the residents of <br />the apartments. It was noted that the fence would be about 120 feet back to <br />the'property line on the north side of Brookpark side. In order to clarify <br />exactly where the fence should start, Mr. Zergott marked it exactly on the <br />plan. One of the neighbors stated that he would like a 6 foot fence, but the <br />members did not believe that would be necessary. Mr: Gallagher suggested that <br />the lighting on the entrance could always be shielded so that it would not <br />shine onto neighbors property. The members had no problen with the 12 foot <br />high, mercury vapor lights shown on the plan. In reference to relocating the <br />club house, it was noted that the board on board fence would also be a sound <br />barrier and relocating the club house would not be necessary. Mr. Zergott <br />noted that he had lived in a condominitun about 20 feet away from the pool and <br />noted that the pool is very rarely used. He.did mentions.that the play area <br />should be closer to the pool since the children would play while the mothers <br />were around the pool: Mr. Bollinger stated that they had purposely put the <br />play area away from the pool specifically to keep the children away from the <br />residential area. The play area'will be enclosed with a 3 foot cyclone fence <br />and is probably about 150 feet from Brookpark Road. Mr. Gallagher agreed that <br />3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.