My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/22/2005 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2005
>
2005 Planning Commission
>
11/22/2005 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:46:24 PM
Creation date
1/25/2019 3:57:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2005
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
11/22/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
to right of way and 4). A variance for a smaller loading zone then required by code applicant shows <br />10' x 20'. The. Planning Commission recommends the 4 variances be granted. R. Bohlmann <br />seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. <br />R. Koeth motion to table North Olmsted Laser Carwash of 25054 Lorain Road with the <br />previously stated recommendations. J. Lasko seconded the motion, which was <br />unanimously approved. During roll call of the motion: Mr. Lasko commended that Mr. King <br />did an admirable job representing his clients in relation to concerns they could have. However <br />he does not believe that the applicant has ever tried to withhold any information or deceive the <br />city or commission in any shape or form and had made every effort in relation to try to develop <br />the parcel in a manor which would enhance the city but will accommodate Mr. King's clients as <br />well. Mr. Conaway voiced that he agreed with Mr. Lasko. <br />3. Red Lobster Restaurant, 25615 Brookpark Rd (WRD 4): <br />Proposal consists of constructing a new 7,222 square foot restaurant and site improvements. <br />Note: Planning Commission addressed this proposal on 10/25/05. The Architectural Review <br />Board addressed this proposal on 11/16/05. <br />Ms Wenger reviewed that a number of changes had been made based upon recommendations by <br />the Commission and the ARB: <br />• Fake windows/shutters have been added to the side elevations to break up the building <br />massing. <br />• The third flag is an Ohio flag. <br />• Signage was revised so that it is not on a raceway. • The side gable elements have hardi-shingle rather than stone to add emphasis to the area at <br />the recommendation of the ARB. <br />• The stone at the main entrance support remained at its former height and configuration at the <br />recommendation of the ARB. <br />• Bike racks were added to the site. <br />• The proposed cypress mulch will .be replaced with premium grade shredded mulch. <br />Revised site plans were submitted updating the parking lot configuration with the restaurant <br />addition and required variances were granted by the BZA November 3`a <br />Ms. Becker indicated that she had viewed their detailed plans and the applicant has responded to <br />all of her comments and the only issue needing to be addressed is a manhole needs to be added <br />on the sanitary sewer main were the lateral line will be tied in. <br />Ms. Nunn representing Red Lobster reviewed that there was a bike rack added to the site as the <br />Architectural Review Board requested. Board members were given a detailed drawing of the <br />bike racks to be used. Shutter window elements were added as requested as well as awnings <br />with which will be highlighted by lights. They have followed all of Architectural Review Boards <br />recommendations. <br />Mr. Yager complemented the applicant for being so efficient and working so quickly in <br />turnarounds getting new plans to each of the boards for review. Although he preferred the <br />masonry higher he would defer to the ARB. The applicant worked hard meeting all the Cities <br />concerns and requests. Board members asked if there would be any down time for the restaurant <br />while moving into the new building. Ms. Nunn thanked the commission for deferring to the <br />Architectural Review Board on the differences as those are areas that can create a lot of trouble <br />in the approval process when boards don't agree.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.