03/19/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

...?-. ?- • ?.>. CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINU'TES - MARCH 19, 1997 AMENDED I. ROLL CALL: Chau-man Zergott called the ineeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Present: T. Liggett, T. Gallaglier, M. Yager, aud B. Zergott. Absent: S. Krieger Also Present: Building Commissiouer Couway and Clerk of Commissions Oring. II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES: Ou Page 2, 10 liues from the bottom should read "all Bayberry", not Barberry. The other places that Barbeny is mentioned are conect, since both plauts are listed. T. Gallagher moved to accept the minutes of February 19, 1997 as corrected, seconded by M. Yager, and unanunously approved. III. SIGNS: 1) Mongello & Associates Office/Retail Building, 25128 Lorain Road. Sigu package for buildiffg proposal_reviewed by arclutectural review board October 16, 1997. Mr. Mongello, arclutect, advised that they were not presenting a revised landscaping plan as previously requested at tlus time. He asked if the board would consider putting back the curved drive that was changed with the original presentation. He explained that three vehicles have driven right across lus property to the uext shopping center. Mr. Liggett, Mr. Yager and W. Zergott agreed that they preferred to keep the green space and believed that plantings and a sign would eliininate that problem after the existing concrete was removed. Mr. Gallagher believed that tlus might be necessary in order to have trucks turu around to get back out onto-Lorain Road. The members believed that the trucks would drive into the back. Mr. Gallagher explained how the chlorine would be delivered. It was decided that if W. Mongello wauted to go back to tlie curved drive he should make application to go back through all the boards. Mr. Frezel, representing Leslie Pool Company who is the main tenant, explained that theie will be a wlute face and individual blue letters with a white halo around them. Mr. Yager liked the individual letters and had no problem with the Leslie sign_ Mr_ Zergott agreed, but questioned if the board should request that they come back with a landscape plan before they review the ground sign. Mr: Mongello explained that they did not have the landscaping for the front portion because they are stilldiscussing the underground utilities with the Illuminating Company. Mr. Zergott responded that the board would approve the signage, but they would have to come back with the landscaping. Building Commissioner Conway asked if the board had any recommendation to board of zoning appeals regarding the variance for the ground sign. Ms. Kemp-Kopco, with W. Mongello, explained 'that the ground sign meets - all the code requirements for location, but they are asking for a variance for the multiple tenant sign. The layout on the Leslie Pool sign will be the same type letters and would be 2 foot by 6 foot and their portion would be 2 foot by 3 foot 4.5 inches and there will be a sign for a third tenant. Their sign will have a white lexan background and they will stipulate that the tlurd tenant must have the same background and would have to come back for approval. W. Conway stated tliat if the board set parameters and the sign met them, the third tenant would not have to come to the board. Mr. Yager was concemed since there are three letter styles on one sign, he would like the same letter style on the ground sigu, even if the wall signs are different. Ms. Kemp-Kopco believed that they could use the letter style of Leslie's. Mr. Yager would like the extra verbiage taken out of both of the other signs