06/09/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• , ? , ti . y constructed differently. He asked if a name recognition sign could be approved on a permanent basis. Mr. Thomas objected to anything permanent. Mr. Trevillian stated that an alternative would be to paint a sign on the side of a building. Mr. Skoulis had concerns regarding the landscape plan adjacent to the northernmost building the end of which faces Great Northern Boulevard and would like that end of the building completely obscured with landscaping. The colored elevation showi.ng that landscaping ha.d been shown to the Architectural Board, but Mr. Trevillian did not have it at this meeting as the Commission had requested previously, but he cLid present a blue print of the rendering. Mr. Skoulis did not believe that the landscaping is adequate especially considering that, due to an error, the building will be 30 feet closer to the sidewalk than originally planned. The Commission approved the change which the developer had estimated would cost approximately $50,000.00 to rectify. The members asked what he considered adequate. Mra Thomas suggested that the developer be asked to work with the forester for a specific buffer on that side of the builcling, and possibly evPn have the forester call Mr. Skoulis to clarify what he wants. Mr. Skoulis agreed, and discussed this with the developer privately. In reference to the fence it had been determined by the A.R.B. that a 6 foot chain link fence would be installed along their property line from the eastern end of the cemetery to I-480. It was clarified for-Mr. Schulz, a resident who had also been at the Architectural meeting, exactly where the fence would be located, and it was further explained would he a vinyl coated, green, 6 foot chain link fence. Mr. Gorris read a portion of the Architeetural Board minutes which stated that the buffer area will be replanted. Building Commissioner Conway explained that the forester was present at the A.R.B. meeting and the developer had agreed to work with him regarding the buffer area. He further explained that not tha.t many trees were removed, but there was a road in that area which was not evident tmtil the trees were removed for the buildings. J. Thoma.s moved to approve the revised landscape plan for the Butternut Ridge Apaxtments incorporating all the suggestions of the Architectural Review Board as indicated on the plan tonight and also stipulating that the City forester, Mr. Wendell, be advised that the Commission has some strong concerns about the buffering of the buildings along Great Northern Boulevard and to contact the developer as well as a representative of our Commission, Mr. Skoulis, in order to clarify exactly what the Commission has required for buffering along Great Northern for the buildings. Also to pay special attention to the buffering behind the cemetery and to indicate what is needed in order to provide proper sereening, and that the sign that is presented tonight also be approved with the stipulation tha.t there will be a one year time limit for the sign to be erected along I-480 and tha.t after one year the sign will be reviewed again by the P1anrLing Comnission as for its appropriateness. (It was clarified that this would be one year from date when the sign permit is issued). It is also our understanding that the fence which is to be erected will stretch from the end of the Butternut Ridge development at I-480, along the property line to the corner of the cemetery on Butternut Ridge Road as noted on the approved plans, seconded by B. Gorris, and tmanimously approved. During the motion, Mr. Orlowski asked if the sign could be considered as a temporary sign. Mr. Conway aduised that permits were not required for temporary signs. Mr. Bowen suggested that this should be considered a temporary approval. 3) Church of St. Clarence, 30106 Lorain Road Proposal to construct pienic pavilion on church property. Heard by Architectural Review Board on May 20, 1992. 4