04/26/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. -• ? McKay agreed that the motion did ask for a brick building with character and questioned why a block building would be considered when it is completely out of character with the area. He reminded them that there is a brick building in Strongsville and wondered why that could not be done here, and if North Olmsted's residents were less than Strongsville`s. Mrs. Diver, a resident of Mitchell, read what she stated was the motion at the last meeting as made by Mr. Gallagher which required brick on three walls. Mr. Orlowski, Vice-Chairman of Planning Commission would prefer a brick building, at'least 8 feet high as suggested by Mr. Sohn, with some other enhancements including a better entrance with more character. He asked A.R.B. to consider a higher mounding on the north starting at the west side of the building going ea.st with more vegetation, : trees etc. He has not seen a landscape plan but would like more conifer trees. He quoted the Plarming Commission minutes of Ma.rch'22nd,wherein Mr..Newberry stated the grade heights at the property line and at the floor level of the building. He would like to see the 8 foot height be considered either from the floor grade of the building and/or the highest elevation along the eastern side of the property line. As it is shown on the plan, he believed that they would get a 6 foot mound along the building arxi a 3 or 4 foot mound in the area of the condominiums. He asked the A.R.B. to consider that. Mrs. Diver corrected her her previous statement and clarified that the 4 foot mound was along Brookpark Road, and mentioned that the Wal-Mart developers were asked to meet with the residents. Ms. 14usser, a resident of the Westbury, wanted clarification of the height of the mound beside the Westbury, since she was told 4 foot last week, now she hears 3%2 which is not very high. She asked how far around the mound would extend since this is their basketball area. Mr. Zergott explained that the plan shows 31-2 and Mr. Sohn advised that the plan never showed 4 feet. Mr. Newberry stated that the 32 feet was the nominal measurement, the area next to the pool was to be higher than that. They trees in that area are not worth saving, but they will be planting some inore. Mr. Newberry explained some points to Ms. Musser privately. He did clarify that there is a 25 foot access easement along the Westbury property line, then it was discovered that a portion of the Westbury garage was in that easer.ient. He believed that this would be a minor adjustment to the,drive. He clarified that if the mound was 32 feet it,would be about 4 feet above curb elevation on the west end of the property and should shield headlights. Ms. Musser believed that the Westbury was not really being considered. Mr. Newberry advised Mr. Zergott that they could agree.to 4 or 4z feet. Mr. Skoulis asked the board how they felt about a 44 foot mound along Brookpark Road. He believed that the aesthetic value of this area is most important and, because of the impact of this development, he believed that this mounding and landscaping should do more than shield headlights. He suggested a 7 foot mound as a minimum, since there is a 33 foot area in which to build it, and it might be possible to use some of the right of way. He would like a heavily planted mound with higher trees and shrubs which would shield the entire parking lot, but would leave the store visible. He questioned why it had to be looked at from them;n-imum standards. He stated that considering the amount of reveriue the developers are loosing while the plans are being delayed, the cost of a mound and landscaping is negligible. He believed that this would be an asset to the entire city and if it is going to be done, it should be done right. Mr. Zergott questioned if there was any information as to how high that mound could be. Mr. Skoulis stated he and Councilman McKay saw a 10 foot high mound around the soccer field in Strongsville, and there was a 21 foot high mound with a fence an top being built behind a new. shopping center. 'The Ma.yor stated that the city insisted on tha,t adjacent to a residential area. Mr. Conway questioned how far these mounds were from a street. He asked for the location so he could look at it. Mr. Newberry responded to some of the commentso Regarding trucks accidentally entering the adjacent swimming pool or one of the