My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/09/1986 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1986
>
1986 Planning Commission
>
12/09/1986 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:33:59 PM
Creation date
1/30/2019 3:28:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1986
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
12/9/1986
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
, <br />, <br />.- c <br />PLANNTNG COMMI.SSION DECEMBER 9, 1986 PAGE 2 <br />front of building, close one bay, add 2 entrance doors, clean or paint <br />existing brick on front and east wall, and install awnings over doors. <br />Building is non-conforming and Board of Zoning Appeals granted a special <br />permit on December 3, 1986. No parking plan was presented but Mr. <br />Purper explained that there are approximately 18 parking spaces in the <br />front of the building and parking layout will not be changed. Mr. <br />Bierman questioned why they are not doing all four sides of the building. <br />Mr. Purper explained that the front and east wall were visible from <br />Lorain Road and that the rear was buffered by trees from the residences. <br />Mr. Bierman disagreed stating that the Suburban property was higher <br />than the residential property and the yellow clay tile on the wall is <br />visible to these residences. Since there would be no way to include <br />a planting strip, Mr. Morgan suggested that they put in some planters <br />at the front of the building. T. Morgan moved that the proposal to <br />refurbish the exterior of the Sub urb an Glass and Tire Company be for- <br />warded to the Architectural Board of Review and in keeping with recom- <br />mendations that they might have relative to planters which could be <br />situated next.to the adjacent front wall or any other kind;.of landscaping <br />that might be amenable between the owner and the Architectural Board <br />and to foYward also to the Safety Department, seconded by R. Bierman, <br />and unanimously approved. <br />IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: <br />No items. <br />V. COMMUNICATIONS: <br />Chairman Burns stated that he has received eogies of pxoposals which?•Zaere <br />submitted to"the Mayor from N.O.A.C.A.`andRegional Planning regarding <br />quotes in various areas of planning. The costs of these proposals range <br />from $1,800. to $50,000. Mr. Burns has not had an opportunity to study <br />these as yet. <br />VI. COMMITTEE REPORTS: <br />No items. <br />VII. NEW BUSINESS: <br />Mr. Bierman asked Mr. Dubelko if when an applicant fails to appear at a <br />meeting could the Commission make that applicant re-apply instead of <br />continuing the proposal. Mr. Dubelko adyised that the Commission could <br />disapprove the proposal and they would have to start over. <br />V.III. OLD BUSINESS: <br />Building Commissioner Spino passed out a more detailed plan of the Crestmont <br />Corporation fence which was approved at the last meeting. Mr. Morgan advised <br />that the fence was approved only to the rear corner of the building, not <br />beyond as shown on the plan. Mr. Spino will advise them of that.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.