10/16/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? mentioned that Mr. Zergott did not, accept the landscape plan and recommended the use of a landscape designer. He also suggested to use austrian pines rather than hemlock. Mr. Yager asked if it was understood where the dirt should be retained as there is quite a bit of fall on portions of the property. Mrs. Kopko presented a photograph showing the view of the building from the neighboring condominiumproperty. She indicated there is a pretty good size landscape area on the neighboring property. Mr. Mongello pointed out if the retaining wall is moved inward approximately three to four trees would be saved. One driveway slopes up to the parking lot and the other slopes down. The retaining wall will be sloped accordingly. Mr. Mongello noted this is an improvement, as many trees will be saved and the landscaping in the front will be moved to the rear creating a 30 to 40 foot landscaped buffer. He noted the trees on the neighboring properties will create a buffer on that side of the property. W. Yager explained the existing blue spruce trees are six to eight feet in height, and do not create an adequate buffer. Mr. Liggett suggested presenting a revised landscape plan which Mr. Zergott can review. T. Liggett moved to accept the proposal of Mongello and Associates, 25128 Lorain Road, with the following comments: the review board questions the necessity of the turnaround drive (on the west side of the building); the site circulation should be reviewed with the type of tenant going in the building; the landscaping should be reviewed by Mr. Zergott; the brick on the front and side of the existing building should be incorporated in the addition; the south elevation and the projected feature on the east side of the addition should be brick; the brick should be a full two stories high in the new areas; vinyl siding should be on all other elevations; each elevation should be more defined with either brick or vinyl; and the board prefers to review at a future date any glass store fronts being incorporated to the south elevations. Mr. Yager emphasized he would like to see one of the driveways removed and clarified the motion is to accept the direction, however this board prefers to review the proposal after the tenant is known. The motion was seconded by S. Krieger aud u.nanimously approved. Motion carried. Due to some confusion, Mr. Liggett was contacted at a later date and verified the above motion. 3) Homestead Village Hotel, located on the south side of Country Club Blvd., east of the proposed Marriott Courtyard, north of I-480, and west of Columbia Road. Proposal to construct hoteL R Newberry, civil engineer, presented the proposal and explained the location of the driveways. He noted the site plan is the same, however, the landscape plan just arrived from Georgia. The plan indicates three existing trees he believes are worthy of preserving. Mr. Newberry passed around a list of the plant names, which was identical to what is listed on the drawing. A current rendering of the hotel was presented, and Mr. Newberry clarified, there will be brick on the bottom half of the building and EIFS or dryvit brick on the upper half. The brick will continue along the columns or indentations of the building, reflecting Homesteads typical elevations. The roof is peaked with asphalt shuigles. A port cochere canopy will project from the front of the building which has a sandy seam roof. In response to Mr. Gallagher's request for the types of materials to be used, Mr. Newberry explained that the brick will be Darlington #55 royal grey; the EIFS dryvit system will be painted to match Sherwin Williams coconut grove #2428; the trim color will be Sherwin Williams white #2123; the lintel of the window will be Shervvin Williams coast point #2053; and the shingle will be Elk prestige sable wood. Mr. Yager noted he never received elevations in his packet. Mr. Newberry explained, the elevations were originally submitted for plauning commission's review, and never changed, therefore they were never submitted with the revised plans. Mr. Yager believed the rendering defines a percentage of contrast between the brick and dryvit or EFIS system, however the samples do not provide a view of the contrast. He noted there is very little relief along the facade and suggested using a brick that is at least