My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/22/1994 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1994
>
1994 Planning Commission
>
03/22/1994 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:32:36 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 7:39:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1994
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
3/22/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
sidewalks on Country Club according to the proposed sidewalk program of the city. <br />The long sidewalk in front of the building is for internal pedestrian circulation <br />and is broken up with two landscaped planters and benches. Pedestrian access from <br />Brookpark to the front of the store is also provided along with a large <br />pedestrian erosswalk area in front of the store from the parking lot. Regarding <br />Mr. Newberry's presentation, Mr. Orlowski noted that there was a 10 foot <br />difference an the previous plan, dated March 18, 1994, between the property line <br />and building at the compactor site which would take up another 10 feet. He noted <br />that they only put in 10 more feet of asphalt, and since he had attended the <br />Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, he assured Mr. Newberry that Mr. Gomersall, in <br />his motion, had intended that this should be an additional 10 foot of landscaping <br />to insure an 8 foot high mound. Also he woiil.d like to see a detailed plan showing <br />how they intend to build an 8 foot mound with a one foot flat top where they are <br />supposed to put- the fence since the fence was not supposed to be off set. Mr. <br />Newberry presented a sketch of the mound, but Mr. Orlowski objected because there <br />were no d.imensions shown on it. He believed that these plans do not show the <br />total distance from their property line to the western most side of the mound, so <br />that he can -verify that the land that they are setting aside is, in fact, wide <br />enough to incorporate an 8 foot high mound. Mr. Newberry responded that the <br />minimt.un setback for parking and paving by code is 25 feet, and that line is <br />shown. Near the compactor pad there is some distance between the 25 foot required <br />setback and the curbing or edge of pavement. At the southern end of that area, <br />where it is indicated to be heavy duty asphalt pavement, they fall exactly on the <br />25 foot line. He stated that the requirements at the B.Z.A. were to build a mound <br />8 feet high, referenced to the elevation at the property li.ne. Mr. Orlowski <br />stated that the requirement of the B.Z.A. was an 8 foot mound that went from the <br />northern most point of their building to within 25 feet of Country Club. He would <br />like to see on paper their 2:1 or 5.5:1 ratio of mounding and how much land is <br />being set aside to build an 8 foot mound. Mr. Newberry explained that the B.Z.A. <br />asked that the referenced elevatian for the begimling of the 8 foot mound be the <br />average elevation along the property line which is at 750, the imund would be at <br />758, and the building is at 752 so there is two foot vertical give there. They <br />also show that the grade of the pavement between the truck dock area and the edge <br />of the mound slopes up at about 3% to get to that corner, so the top of the curb <br />at the edge of the pavement is about 6 inches above floor level. He explained <br />that at the narrowest point they brought the pavement up and the curb would slope <br />up to nnet the mound at, an elevation of 755.5. Mr. Orlowski noted that nothing on <br />the plan showed that. 'He further stated that the B.Z.A. can only recomnend the <br />green space, they had no authority to grant it, and he would like specific <br />information showing the footage an the bottom of .that mound and he would like him <br />to prove that the 8 foot mound will carry straight through, because he did not <br />believe that in 25 feet, at a 2 to 2z foot fall, there would be enough distance. <br />He believed that Mr. Gomersall had wanted the additional 10 feet to be green <br />area, not asphalt, and he stated that he wanted to make sure that there was <br />enough distance to maintain an 8 foot high mound. He also noted that the drawing <br />showed the fence off set ard he wanted to make sure that it was on the top. Mr. <br />Newberry stated that from an aesthetic and maintenance standpoint, he would <br />prefer that the fence be off set so that they would have the responsibility for <br />maintaining what happens at the top. Mr. Orlowski responded that it would always <br />be their responsibilityo Mr. Newberry stated that they intended to plant a low <br />maintenance type of growth or ground cover on the east side of the mound so they <br />would not have to go on the other side of the fence to mow it, whereas on their <br />side of the mound there would be grass with trees which could be maintained from <br />their side. He also thought that, by off setting the fence about 2 feet frm the <br />top of the mound, space would be provided for catching debris agains-',I? the fence, <br />3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.