My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/16/1992 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1992
>
1992 Architectural Review Board
>
12/16/1992 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:32:02 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 6:05:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1992
Board Name
Architectural Review Board
Document Name
Minutes
Date
12/16/1992
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 />in 1984, but was never implemented. The original plan showed the new parking <br />located where there had been a gravel base which was previously used for <br />parking. The Planning Commission suggested that parking be relocated from the <br />rear to the front green area to minimize the impact that this business had on <br />the neighbors to the rear. One of the revised plans show the majority of the <br />green area at the rear and side of the building (closest to Hickory Lane), and <br />the other has a traffic pattern around the building and a smaller greeri area <br />across the entire back of the property with nine parking spaces set into a <br />portion of the buffer east of the building. Mr. Sohn questioned why this board <br />was reviewing a proposal when the Safety Department and Planning Commission had <br />not approved the site plan. It was clarified that Planning Corrnnission had not <br />approved a specific plan, but had forwarded the original plan with specific <br />suggestions. Mr. Gallagher preferred as much buffer as possible to adjacent <br />residential property in the rear even if it means taking some landscaping away <br />from the side and front. Mr. Martin stated that these plans merely reflect ideas <br />but they are proposing to add eleven Armstrong maples and 35 white pines along <br />with the existing 10 foot fence. Mr. Hamdon, a neighbor to the rear, pointed out <br />that they have two problems, noise from cars in the parking lot and also noise <br />from the building. Mr. Burt believed that if ca.rs were driven behind the <br />building it would increase the noisee Mr. Martin advised that they Ytave done <br />some sound proofing inside the building. Mr. Gallagher suggested some kind of <br />mounding with trees and fencing. Mr. Hamdon agreed that a mound would help with <br />the sound downstairs, but it would not help the noise they hear from the <br />bedrooms upstairs, he suggested that removing the 9 spaces in the rear might <br />help. Mrs. Hamdon believed that an acoustical engineer was needed to elimina.te <br />the interior noise, these plans should be addressed to handle the exterior <br />noise. Mr. Martin stated that they need a11 of the 121 spaces, and could not <br />land bank any of these spaces. Mr. Gallagher suggested relocating the 9 spaces <br />in the rear to the landscaped buffer area along Hickory Lane. Mr. Sohn believed <br />that the nine spaces would fit in that area and also suggested installing speed <br />bumps. He suggested that if there was not room for these nine spaces, they could <br />request a variance to have less than 20 for the front landscape buffer on the <br />new parking area. Mro Martin clarified for a neighbor that there would be 35 <br />pines across the rear of the property, staggered 10 feet on center in a 34 foot <br />buffer adjacent to the rear property line. Mr. Chao, a resident located to the <br />rear and side of the night club, would like the fence returned along the <br />easterly property line to protect his property. They show 7 foot high wY?ite <br />pines along that line, and Mr. Ma.rtin does believed that the landscaping would <br />be more aesthetically pleasing than the fence. Mr. Zergott suggested that theF <br />mound the area just around the corner. Mr. Chao preferred the fence and it was <br />agreed it would run south for 54 feet from the northern pzoperty line along the <br />eastern most line. Mr. Gallagher suggested that the employees park in the back <br />spaces. Mr. Burt stated that the rear exit would only be an emergency exit, not <br />as an entrance. It was clarified that there would be retention on the property, <br />and the drains would be on the southerly side of the mound, but the amount of <br />water draining to the north would be insignificant. Handicapped spaces are now <br />located right by the front door. The front landscape area will extend from the <br />eastern portion of the property to existing blue spruce on Hickory Lane and will <br />consist of a 2 foot mound wi.th Fitzers on the top and wood chips. Mr. Zergott <br />suggested using a sea green juniper which only gets about 2 foot tall. The <br />existing pole sign will be removed and a ground sign will be installed adjacent <br />to the front drive. In reference to the lighting, Mr. Burt stated that there was <br />a pole light and wall lights on the building. Mr. Hamdon stated that these <br />lights glare into their back yard. Mr. Gallagher recommended that these fixtures <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.