My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/20/1992 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1992
>
1992 Architectural Review Board
>
05/20/1992 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:32:01 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 6:00:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1992
Board Name
Architectural Review Board
Document Name
Minutes
Date
5/20/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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 />approve the aesthetics of the sign along I-480, but believed that Planning <br />Commission should decide how I-480 is to be treated. Finally all trees along <br />Great Northern Boulevard or any trees that are in public view must be changed to <br />2 inch caliper; the weeping willows must be changed weeping birch, beech, crab, <br />or cherry, whatever the architect ean work aut, seconded by T. Gallagher, and <br />unanimously approved. The developers were advised that Mr. Sohn, who is not <br />present this evening, would like to review the color renderings of the signs. <br />The plans were noted with all the revisions and dated by Mr. Trevillian. After <br />the developers left, Mr. Gallagher suggested that these I-480 signs should be <br />allowed for 1 year and then removed to keep I-480 green. Thi.s had been discussed <br />previously by the Planning Commission. <br />1) Habitat, 4687 Great Northern Boulevard. (Heard at this point). <br />Proposal for exterior renovation to a unit in an existing shopping center. <br />Heard by Board of Zoning Appeals on April 1, 1992. <br />Referred by Planning Commission on May 12, 19920 <br />Mr. Solomon and Mr. Shepherd, represented Habitat and Mr. Pierman, the owner of <br />the center, were present. Mr. Solomon presented revised plans and explaaned that <br />this store sells wallpaper and blinds and will be a training center for the <br />area. They presented a color elevation showing the renovations to the proposed <br />unit in conjunction with the other tmits which are to remain the same. The Board <br />of Zoning Appeals had granted the variance for the sign, but wanted the entire <br />proposal referred to the Planning Commissionv Mr. Shepherd stated that the back <br />of the peak (adjacent to a residential area) would be covered with Dryvit and <br />the supports would only extend two feet above the original mansard, the front <br />area would be about 4 feet over the parapet. Mr. Solomon stated that they cannot <br />afford to remodel the whole strip center, bnt they are hoping the other tenants <br />would follow suit. Mr. Zergott read Mr. Sohn's comments who agreed with Planning <br />Commission that the letters of the sign are too big. He further commented that <br />the entire elevation should have been shown; tha.t this is a piecemeal approach; <br />there should be a total renovation of the front; that the mansard is too high; <br />he will not accept a partial renovation; and the owner of center should have a <br />sign criteria so one tenant's sign is not bigger than the others. Mr. Solomon <br />pointed out that a variance had been.given for the sign. He believed that the <br />variance was granted because the Board was pleased that they were making an <br />effort to fix up the unit. Mr. Zergott wondered if the other tenants would also <br />want larger signs to match this one. Mr. Shepherd explained that they chose a <br />beige Dryvit (VanDyke #110, Sandblast) so that it would blend in with the brown <br />metal mansard, and they will be painting the Dryvit brown where the two <br />materials can be seen together. The white Dryvit on the lower portion of the <br />sign is Bright White #102. The aluminum window and door trim will be bronze. Mr. <br />Solomon stated that the Dryvit was a better material than the aluminum. Mr. <br />Zergott agreed but is concerned about how it will look with the other tmi:ts. He <br />pointed out that the rendering shows that the alumirnun mansard is damaged now. <br />Mr. Shepherd pointed aut that this.treatment is in the center of the building. <br />Mr. Gallagher questioned why the Board of Zoning Appeals had approved that large <br />a sign. Mr. Solomon explained that they had eliminated a pylon sign and reduced <br />the sign area to reach a compromise. The members would have no problem if the <br />entire center were to be refurbished, and were concerned tha.t other tenants <br />would request larger signs. Mr. Shepherd stated that his company would agree to <br />paint the entire mansard to match the Dryvit. The members agreed that then this <br />would not stand out as much. Mr. Pierman had no objection. If they agree to do <br />this, Mr.. Solomon would like to include an embossed red stripe in the.Dryvit to <br />the ends of their unit to emphasize its size. Mr. Shepherd believed that, <br />4
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.