My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/19/1986 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1986
>
1986 Architectural Review Board
>
03/19/1986 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:33:49 PM
Creation date
1/30/2019 2:59:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1986
Board Name
Architectural Review Board
Document Name
Minutes
Date
3/19/1986
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
ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW March 19, 1986 Page 2 <br />a dark anodized brown. Board discussed roof, color rendering shows a <br />light brown roof which Mr. Pattison prefers. Mr. Ebin pointed out that <br />the metal at grade would cause a problem with corrosion; since building <br />is intended to be portable, this type foundation is necessary. Board <br />suggested galvanizing the metal or putting building on a 6" high founda- <br />tion.- No gutters or downspouts are shown on plan. The sign showz <br />on plan is a roof top sign which is nor permitted, signage must be sub- <br />mitted later. S. Ebin moved to approve the plans as submitted, exclud- <br />ing the roof sign; and conditional upon the Building Department's re- <br />commendation that they do something at the base which would not change <br />the character of the design, to avoid rusting and corrosion of the metal, <br />and approve the roof with the suggestion that the shingles be a blend <br />of light browns with a shake look to them, seconded by Mr. Pattison, <br />and unanimously approved. A conforming sign must be resubmitted to <br />the Board and both buildings on the property must be considered when <br />the Building Department reviews the signs. <br />2) Retail Building (W. R. Davison), 23900 Lorain Rd. <br />Proposal to construct retail building (second phase of Adon Equipment Co. <br />proposal, originally heard by the Architectural Board September 18, 1985) <br />Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Kasserman, the owners, explained that this building <br />will be the same material as the building now under construction. The <br />f-'aci,a will be a charcoal gray metal with a sign panel, buff split face <br />block will be on the walls (4" on front and 8" on rear walls), windows <br />will be clear glass. Mechanical equipment will not be on the roof, no <br />air conditioner is planned at this time, but a condenser can be installed <br />at grade on rear of property adjacent to existing fence. Mr. Ebin <br />would prefer to have all the electrical service underground. The owners <br />explained that because of C?,E.I's depth requirement, they would have to <br />put the wires under the retention pipe and the cost of that would be <br />prohibitive. All service will come into one pole on the property and <br />will serve all three buildings. 7' deep landscaping bed will be install- <br />ed across 75' of the front of the property. D. Pattison moved to <br />approve the plans as submitted, seconded by J. Britton. Roll call on <br />motion: Pattison, Britton, and Case, Yes. Mr. Ebin, No. Mr. Ebin <br />explained that the building is very nice, but he still does not like the <br />overhead wires. <br />3) The Doll House, 30036 Lorain Rd. <br />Proposal to use existing house for retail building. <br />(Heard by the Planning Commission February 25, 1986. <br />Mr. and Mrs. Urry presented plans for house which will be sided and <br />painted red with white trim. Forester has made recommendation to leave <br />one tree (which they had planned to remove) on property and take out <br />the other two. Board agrees with his recommendations. Bay windows wi11 <br />be installed in place of front, flat windows. Mr. Pattison suggested <br />that muntins be installed in windows and stated that he does not care <br />for the bright red color since this business is adjacent to a residence <br />(property is zoned General Retail); he suggested a toned down version of <br />the color. Mr. Urry advised that he had no definite plans for landscaping,
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.