My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/10/1992 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1992
>
1992 Planning Commission
>
11/10/1992 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:32:11 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 6:18:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1992
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
11/10/1992
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 />, CITY OF NORTEI OLMSTED <br />PLANNING COMNIISSION <br />MINTJTES-NOVIIKBIIt 10, 1992 <br />I. ROLL CALL: <br />Chairman Gorris called the rieeting to order at 7:15 p.m. <br />Present: K. 0'Rourke, A. Skoulis, J. Thomas, and B. Gorris <br />Mr. Tallon arrived later. <br />Absent: L. Orlowski <br />Also Present: Councilman Lind, Assistant Law Director Dubelko, City Engineer <br />Deichmann, Building Connnissioner Conway, and Clerk of Commissions <br />Oring. <br />II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES: <br />J. Thomas moved to approve the minutes of October 27, 1992 as presented, <br />seconded by B. Gorris, and unanimously approved. III. BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUESTS: <br /> <br />No itemso <br />IV. NEtiJ DEVEIAPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: <br /> No items. <br />V. COrITNNICATIONS: <br /> No items. <br />VI. CON7MITTEE REPORTS : <br /> No iter,is. <br />VII. NE6d BLTSINESS : <br /> No items. <br />VIII. OLD BUSINESS: <br />The members discussed some minor changes. Building Comrriissioner Conway explained <br />that Velvet Touch Car Wash was requesting to relocate 3 lignting fixtures from <br />the south side of the Dover Center drive to the north side to save some trees and <br />also to eliminate a portion of the fence on the same drive in order to preserve <br />the hedges on the south side of the drive. rlr. Conway clarified that the owner of <br />the adjacent building did not taant the hedges removed so the fence «ould notv <br />start beyond the hedges. It was decided that this should go on to the <br />Architectural Review Boardo NTr. Gorris would like a letter from the adjacent <br />neighbor stating that he agrees to these changes. <br />The second minor change was the Szarka's proposal (now called Corso's). Board of <br />Zoning Appeals had required that a fence be installed on the eastern property <br />line. Now the owners are requesting a fence across the front of the house that is <br />on the same property and which would then return south from the driveway. The <br />Architectural Board originally requested that the house be painted to match the <br />restaurant. It was decided to refer this to the Architectural Board as we11. It <br />was clarified that these proposals did not have to return to the Planning <br />Cor?mission after the Architectural Board.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.