My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/21/1986 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1986
>
1986 Architectural Review Board
>
05/21/1986 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:33:48 PM
Creation date
1/30/2019 2:58:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1986
Board Name
Architectural Review Board
Document Name
Minutes
Date
5/21/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MAY 21, 1986 PAGE 3 <br />nance requires two outlets when there are more than twenty parking <br />spaces. Mr. Pattison would prefer that there be two lanes exiting the <br />property and one entering; plans show the opposite. No specific land- <br />scape plan was presented. They advised that they plan to save as many <br />trees as possible and the remainder of the landscaping will be grass. <br />Board would like site plan to show trees to be saved and some shrubs <br />included. Ventilation for drive-thru area is planned, but not shown <br />on plans. Board questioned if catch basin in drive-thru should be <br />connected to the storm sewer. Building Commissioner Spino advised that <br />normally it is, but he will check this out. He also recommended addi- <br />tional lavatory facilities be installed in front area of the building. <br />Ventilation for drive-thru area is planned, but not shown on plans. <br />No roof top mechanical units are planned, condensor will be on ground <br />and will be fenced. Residential property abuts rear of this property, no <br />fencing or screening is shown. Mr. Wagner would like to use the pole <br />sign which is at his existing location; Board would like to see photo- <br />graph of sign and any change of copy planned. D. Pattison moved to <br />disapprove this and request that it be resubmitted with the additional <br />information as indicated, seconded by S. Ebin, and unanimously approved. <br />They were advised that they could continue on to Planning Commission and <br />that the Commission could, if they so desire, approve proposal without <br />the Architectural Board's approval. They were also advised to take the <br />required information to the Planning Commission meeting. <br />2) Great Northern Technology Park II, south side of Country Club Blvd. <br />Proposal to construct second office building as originally shown on <br />Master Plan. (Heard by Planning Commission May 13, 1986). <br />Mr. Carlisle, Biskind Development Co., presented plans. Exterior of <br />building will be identical to Phase I, gray building with red trim. <br />Planning Commission had questioned the western most drive. This is <br />being revised and the divided lane will probably be brought on to the <br />site and then narrowed down on the property and completed when the <br />third phase is built. (Signs for Technology Park I and II were dis- <br />cussed and approved at this point and are explained under Section III, <br />Signs). S. Ebin moved to approve the plans as submitted with the <br />understanding that the western most drive will be a fully developed <br />boulevard similar to the east drives, seconded by M. Case. Roll call <br />on motion: Ebin, Case, and Britton, Aye. Mr. Pattison abstained. <br />3) Galati's Auto Service Center, 27539 Lorain Rd. <br />Proposal to add to existing garage, review of site plan and landscape <br />plan. (Special permit granted April 10, 1986 by the Board of Zoning <br />Appeals; special permit approved by Council May 7, 1986). (Heard by <br />Planning Commission May 13, 1986). <br />Mr. Wilkes, architect, explained that addition will match the original <br />building, two bays and a work area will be added. Front of building <br />will be painted metal facing; rear and side walls are to be painted <br />concrete block. Mr. Pattison suggested that side and new rear walls be <br />integrally colored block in a buff tone or whatever is compatible with
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.