My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/16/1980 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1980
>
1980 Architectural Review Board
>
06/16/1980 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/9/2020 3:44:37 PM
Creation date
1/30/2019 8:14:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1980
Board Name
Architectural Review Board
Document Name
Minutes
Date
6/16/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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 JUNE 16, 1980 PAGE 2 <br />questions on the location of the easterly entrance way and the <br />circulation pattern which will require double 90 degree turns, <br />and also, that the Board recommends that the Planning Commission <br />and the Building Dep artment review all the set back requirements <br />of the City Code where it comes to parking set back and build- <br />ing set back since it appears that the site is exceeding the <br />code, seconded by M. Case. Roll Call on Motion: Petroski, <br />Parry, and Case, aye. Mr. Williams, who had just arrived, <br />abstained. <br />(c) The Uppercut, 24002 Lorain Rd. <br />Mr. J. Jadrych who leases the property presented the plans. <br />C. Petroski stated that this building and many others like it <br />were orginally residential and have been converted to retail <br />use and questions if these b uildings have been brought up to <br />the O.B.C. Standards for Commercial use. It was also sug- <br />gested that an addition to the front of this building would <br />alter the appearance so that it would resemble a commercial <br />building and not a residential garage and it could then be <br />b rought up to the Commercial Codes. R. Parry commented th at <br />rather than tacking on a non-conforming addition on an already <br />non-conforming building with a non-conforming sign and a non- <br />conforming parking area that the entire area should be re- <br />designed. C. Petroski moved to disapproved based on the facts: <br />1) the building was not designed or constructed as a com- <br />mercial building and now it is just a pseudo commercial <br />b uilding and possibly does not conform to the commercial <br />code, 2) an addition on the front would be much more feasable <br />and would bring up to standard the building as a whole rather <br />than just an appendage, 3) A more detailed site plan should <br />be submitted showing parking and the plan submitted should <br />be drawn to scale by a professional, 4) because this would <br />be a non-conforming addition to a non-conforming building <br />with a non-conforming parking area, seconded by D. tiJilliams, <br />and unanimously app rove d. <br />V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: <br />(a) 10 Minut-_ Lubrication Center, 25715 Lorain Rd. <br />Mr. Cushenam explained the landscape plan. They have al- <br />ready planted three flowering plum trees along the boundry <br />of the property and are now going to plant the 16 x 16 foot <br />area in the front with low growing evergreens using railroad <br />ties to box in the planting bed. It was suggested that the <br />evergreens be massed in broups possibly Primary Contoneaster or <br />Horizontal Conteaster and using a flower such as marigolds for <br />color. D. Williams moved to approve a landscapebed of ap- <br />proximately 16 x 16 feet at the northeast corner of the <br />site utilizing material such as Cranberry Gotoneaster or <br />Horizontal Contoneaster with a variety of I7warf Juniper and <br />flowers in season approving also the planting of the trees, <br />seconded by M. Case, and unanimously approved.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.