My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/09/1994 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1994
>
1994 Planning Commission
>
05/09/1994 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:32:38 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 7:43:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1994
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
5/9/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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 />might be a.n optical illusion. Mr. Herbsman stated that it should the same height. He clarified that <br />the south wall should be carried around on the south elevation to the garden center wall and the <br />3-1/2 foot wainscot in the split face material was to protect the building from damage by carts, <br />etc. Mr. Newberry clarified that the Macedonia store was constructed out of 8 inch thick, <br />through the wall, 4 inch high, 16 inch long concrete masonry units that look like brick. He <br />explained that the basic difference between the brick units and the through the wall block wuts <br />was that it is made of concrete instead of clay and the texture pattern is slightly different. <br />Regarding the mounding on the east side of the property has been set at 8 feet above the floor <br />elevatiou of the building and a split face type masonry unit retaining wall must be installed to <br />maintain the height if ineasured from that elevation; the color of the block will match the building. <br />He will forward that sample as soon as it is available. There will be 20 feet between the retaining <br />wall and the structure that extends out. He noted that the location of the sidewallcs along <br />Brookpark Road was dictated by the requirement of the mounding and the location of the <br />drainage ditch. He presented a sketch of the wall with a single width, 6 inch thick through-the- <br />wall brick unit with a precast concrete coping on top which is to be installed on the mound and <br />explained that it will be installed on a foundation of a grade beam and spread footings at the <br />pilasters which are to be 20 to 30 feet apart. There are no plans as yet, for a structure where the <br />mound tapers down and it has been suggested, since this is beyond the adjacent buildings, tlus <br />might be an appropriate place to start a wood fence which can be brought down to grade <br />gradually. They are now showing a"Do Not Block Driveway" sign on the Great Northern <br />Boulevard access and have re-oriented the drive slightly to avoid the concrete slab on the east end <br />of the Westbury Apartments' parking lot as well to avoid interfering with the underground <br />garage. The mound on the east, will have blue spruce, Austrian pine, and white pine to vary the <br />types as suggested by the forester, also there will be hawthorns and crabapples interspersed <br />throughout for color. He presented a light plan showing the shielded fixtures as requested which <br />indicates .5 foot candle at the property and curb lines, but allows for some accenting at the <br />entrauces on Brookpark for safety. Further at the request of the Commission, there is an alternate <br />site plau with only one access shown on Brookpark Road. He clarified that, if they are limited to <br />one access, this would be the preferred one and under these circumstances it would be the best <br />location. If the second access is removed, their tra$'ic engineer has advised that it would merely <br />change the level of service by an incremental amount; if it is an "A" now, it would go to an "A-". <br />He clarified that the traffic using this access would be coming eastbound on Brookpark, from the <br />north on Great Northern, or from the west on Brookpark. He explained that he was not sure how <br />the traffic would exit, but usually drivers take the method of least resistance, and the traffic <br />analysis does not always indicate what the traffic will actually do once the project is open. City <br />Engineer Deichmauu advised that a signal will be installed on Brookpark and. since normally a <br />developer is required to pay for it and the related work, he has no reason to believed that this will <br />not be the case here. Mr. .Newberry stated that this would not be a problem to the developers. In <br />the eveut that the plan is approved with only one access on Brookpark, Mr. Tallon asked that the <br />set of fixtures at the second entrance be changed. Mr. Newberry agreed that, if this access was <br />eliminated, those fi}ctures would be shielded. Regarding the effect of this access on the parcel <br />across the street, Mr. Newberry understood that a letter had been submitted from Biskind <br />Developmeut indicating that they did not have a problem with the location of the access. The <br />nlouud along the Brookpark right of way now shows a 6 foot high (measured from the floor <br />elevation ofthe building) mound and he has talked to O.iD.O.T. who advised that they would not <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.