My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/16/2005 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2005
>
2005 Architectural Review Board
>
11/16/2005 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:46:12 PM
Creation date
1/25/2019 3:17:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2005
Board Name
Architectural Review Board
Document Name
Minutes
Date
11/16/2005
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
CITI' OF NORTH OLIVISTED <br />ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD <br />MAYOR'S COIeTFERENCE ROOlVI <br />WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2005 <br />MINUTES <br />1. ROLL CALL: <br />J. Crook called the meeting to order at 5:34 p m. <br />PRESENT: Chairman J. Crook, J. Werner, J. Nader, T. Ulewicz, G. Malone <br />(Mr. Werner left at 6:30 p.m. before the GFS application.) <br />ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director Wenger <br />II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES: <br />Mr. Crook made three clarifications to the previous meeting minutes. J. Crook moved to <br />approve the minutes of October 19t", as amended. J. Nader seconded the motion, which was <br />unanimously approved. <br />III. OLD BUSINESS <br />IV. NEVV BUSINESS <br />North Olmsted Laser Wash; 25054 Lorain Road (WRD 4): <br />Laser Wash representative Tim Flury made a brief presentation on the proposed project. He <br />indicated that buffering the residential area seemed to be the biggest concern. They proposed <br />adding a vinyl fence to the rear line for screening and add additional trees to fill in visual gaps. <br />Board members were concerned that the fence installation not damage existing trees, and that the <br />fence match the building colors. They also recommended that screening be enhanced on the <br />west side of the lot. Ms. Wenger asked if the clearance bar had been relocated in accordance <br />with the Planning Commission's recommendations. The applicant said he did not know. <br />Mr. Croolc aslced why the monument sign was placed in the corner of the lot. The applicant <br />responded that a central location would put the sign within the required setbaclc area. Mr. Crook <br />said that the representative picture of the sign did not match the sketch. He felt the two side piers <br />should be wider, as in the picture, to be at least 16 inches wide. <br />Mr. Croolc generally lilced the look of the building, with the exception of the banding. He <br />recommended that the bottom band be replaced with a soldier course of brick and the upper band <br />be replaced with a soldier course header above windows and doors. Mr. Crook also wondered if <br />the east elevation could be broken up with the addition of a fake window and shutters. Looking <br />at the roof elements, Board members felt that the round gable vents were out of proportion on the <br />south fagade, and should be reduced to a 36 inch diameter.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.