My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/13/2016 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2016
>
2016 Planning and Design Commission
>
01/13/2016 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:45:36 PM
Creation date
1/24/2019 8:15:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2016
Board Name
Planning & Design Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
1/13/2016
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
- • <br />southern boundary and redspire pear trees were added to supplement the arbor vitae along the <br />rear setback adjacent to the apartments. BZBA granted the variance for the side yard setback and <br />the applicant made changes to remove the other required variances. Changes were made to allow <br />the building to be shifted to the west to meet the rear building setback. Parking was reconfigured <br />and the sign and lighting packages comply with the zoning code. Mr. DiFranco stated he has <br />nothing in addition to what was discussed at the first meeting regarding storm water <br />management. <br />Mr. Paulson stated they were able to modify the site plan to meet zoning requirements for the <br />rear yard setback. They narrowed the driveway between the parking lanes and decreased the <br />width of the sidewalk in front of building. They also moved the building as far forward and to <br />the west as possible. The lighting was decreased to conform to the code. The size of sign on the <br />fagade was also reduced. In regard to the building elevations, painted split face block was <br />replaced with colored brick. Brick detailing was added to the top of the building. Recessed mock <br />windows were made different colored bricks. Landscaping suggested by Mr. Malone at previous <br />meeting was added. Mr. Rerko asked what is on the back of raised front portion of the building. <br />Mr. Paulson was unsure what the residents of the apartment building would see. Mr. Rerko <br />wanted the construction company to take extra care when building the roof since it will be visible <br />from the apartments. Mr. O'Malley commented that the code requires screened in rooftop units. <br />Mr. Paulson stated that the roof slopes from the front to the back so the units would be enclosed. <br />Mr. Paulson confirmed that Dollar General will not have goods outside. Ms. Wenger stated that <br />Mr. Malone's plan notes suggested that irrigation be installed for all new planted areas, other <br />than that he was satisfied with the changes. Ms. Wenger clarified that temporary signage would <br />have to be per code. Ms. Nader clarified that the HVAC unit would be screened. Mr. Paulson <br />stated that the current transformer fed by underground feeds from the south are going to be <br />removed and replaced with a new utility pole to feed transformers and new underground feeds <br />will go to Dollar General and CVS. Mr. DiFranco stated that the downspouts need to be tied <br />underground into the storm sewer per code. Mr. Paulson described their plan for creating an <br />underground chamber system to collect storm water. Ms. Nader requested that the fence detail on <br />C-5 be removed to provide clarity. <br />Jeff Sturgeon, resident, acknowledged the iinprovements made in the plans. He would like to see <br />the fence on the south side of the property be vinyl, which would require less maintenance. He <br />requested that a fence be installed to the corner of the building to deter pedestrian traffic as well <br />as the headwall be reconstructed correctly. He asked if the Dollar General sign would be turned <br />off when the building is closed. Mr. Paulson stated that Dollar General prefers to use the board <br />on board fence versus a vinyl fence. He added that he believes the light would be shut off but <br />cannot say for sure. Discussion occurred over a fence connection to the building, determined it is <br />unnecessary. Mr. Rerko suggested vinyl fencing be installed to prevent maintenance issues. Mr. <br />Schumann and Ms. Nader agreed that vinyl fencing should be installed. <br />Ms. Nader moved, seconded by Mr. Rerlco, to approve the proposa115-4683 Dollar General; <br />PP# 237-09-005, which consists of a new commercial building and site improvements, with <br />the follodving conditions: <br />1. No merchandise is to be sold outside of the store <br />2. All landscape planting areas will be irrigated
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.