My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/19/1995 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1995
>
1995 Architectural Review Board
>
04/19/1995 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:33:04 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 8:38:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1995
Board Name
Architectural Review Board
Document Name
Minutes
Date
4/19/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
J <br />if this area was just going to be allowed to continue to fall apart. Mr. Conway clarified that they <br />have committed to do some improvements. Mr. Corsi responded that this would minimi?e the <br />upkeep and they cannot afford to keep this up as a city street, but they can maintain their private <br />streets. It was clarified that this proposal does not have to return to the plamiing commission unless <br />this board has a major objection. Mr. Zergott clid not think that anything, other than a guard rail <br />could be done there, unless it was turned into a 40 or 50 foot wide green space; it would not be <br />feasible as a 10 foot wide strip with a couple of trees in it because it would be destroyed and look <br />terrible. So if it cannot be turned into a beautiful green space or a usable area, he cannot see putting <br />money into something that will not be maintained and it appeared that neither party cared. B. <br />Zergott moved to approve the Great Northern Plaza North, Lorain and Brookpark Road, proposal <br />to erect barricade on drive behind shopping center in order to eliminate through traffic with a guard <br />rail, since unless this area could be turned into a large landscaped area, at least 50 feet wide to <br />accommodate snow plowing, nothing other than a rail would be satisfactory. Prior to secondiv.g the <br />motion, Mr. Yager stated that he would have to reject this, and it was clarified that he could second <br />the motion and still vote against it. M. Yager seconded the motion. Roll call on motion: Zergott, <br />yes and Yager, no. Motion failed to pass. Mr. Yager clarified that he rejected the proposal because <br />it is probably the least appealing solution, and if they do not like the landscape buger, then the <br />owners should consider how people come and go because people will still have to find a way to <br />turn around. He stated that there seems to be ample area to solve the problem in a better way <br />which could also include solving the snow removal problems and the turn around issues. He stated <br />that there is ample opportunity to firid other solutions of which the simplest, least aesthetically <br />appealing, and most confusing solution would be installing the guard rail when the road continues. <br />He believed that what they are trying to achieve is excellent, but this is a primitive way to solve it. <br />Ms. Schulz stated it might not be ideal, but it is the most practical. He clarified for N1r. Corsi the <br />problems he saw with having drivers who are lost and confused going through a parking lot. Mr. <br />Yager stated that a civil engineer could solve this in about half an hour and he is rejecting how they <br />are doing it, not the fact that they are closing the road. It was clarified that this proposal was <br />reviewed by the Safety Department and the city traffic engineer. Mr. Corsi was given a copy of the <br />Safety Department report and one will be sent to the condo association. Mr. Zergott did not know <br />why this was referred to the Architectural Review Board since the representatives did not want the <br />landscaping island. Mr. Bensen stated that he d.id not say that, but he does want the road blocked <br />off. Mr. Zahorchak stated that he had said that, but he did not intend to mislead them. Mr. Zergott <br />believed that a landscape buffer would cost thousands of dollars and that is why he suggested that <br />the two groups get together to discuss not wasting the concrete area, but making this a viable park <br />area. He reiterated that a 10 foot landscape berm would die, but he cannot ask the owner to make <br />a park. Mr. Corsi stated that, from a practical standpoint, it does not make sense to turn a delivery <br />area into a landscaped area. W. Yager reiterated that they could come up with a better solution <br />since the worst option is giving drivers options when they are confused anyway. Mr. Corsi stated <br />that when a new traffic light was installed in an area, they put up a big, lighted sign advising of it. <br />Mr. Zergott would like this proposal to be referred back to the plauving commission, and the <br />representatives were advised that it would be on the agenda next Tuesday. <br />III. SIGNS: (Heard at this point). <br />Building Commissioner Conway presented renderings of two signs for the Blue Moon Cafe, a <br />building sign and a insert for the pole sign, both of which use a bright blue and a bright fuchsia <br />4
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.