My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/27/2011 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2011
>
2011 Planning and Design Commission
>
04/27/2011 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:47:39 PM
Creation date
1/25/2019 7:59:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2011
Board Name
Planning & Design Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
4/27/2011
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
along the rear but would look to adding more landscaping along the front. Mr. Malone said as <br />the curb cut is being resized he would like to see brick pavers installed. He commended the <br />applicant for using permeable pavers along the back parking area. Mr. Pinter said the monument <br />has not been designed to date; the sign shown is an example of may be installed later. The wall <br />sign will be the same size and scale of the previous sign and the lettering will be aluminum <br />letters. Mr. Bohlmann said it was a good idea to keep the arborvitaes along the back for <br />buffering. He asked that the extra wires along the front east and west side of the building be <br />removed. He questioned if the existing utility pole on the site would be removed and Mr. Pinter <br />said it was not scheduled to be removed. Mr. Mitchell said abandoned poles are the owner's <br />responsibility to remove. Mr. Bohlmann asked if there would be a dumpster in the back and Ms. <br />Hinkel said the dumpster will remain inside and only place outdoors when being picked up. Mr. <br />Bohlmann asked that approval be contingent upon if any items are stored outdoors it will be kept <br />within an enclosure with gates. Mr. Peepers questioned who owned the building and Ms. <br />Wenger said the city owns the building. <br />Mr. Peepers said he was concerned that noise would become an issue from the bikes. He <br />questioned running the motor cycles outdoors for testing. Mr. Pany felt the rear overhead door <br />should be kept down during working hours. He asked if the septic tank shown on the plan would <br />remain and Mr. Mitchell said the tank could be a washout tank. Mr. Pinter said they have to <br />have the tank checked to see what it is and what it was used for. Mr. Parry agreed that the rear <br />landscaping was needed but didn't feel the east side landscaping needed to be as dense as it is <br />abutting commercial property. A brief discussion ensued pertaining to a solid or board on board <br />fence and Mr. Rerko said a board on board is a better sound barrier then a solid fence. <br />Discussion occurred about the west drive being two-way traffic as an existing condition and rear <br />traffic will be for employees and customer parking will be in front. The proposed drive will need <br />to be sized to meet code which is 18 ft wide. <br />Mr. Stare who owns the property to the west said he is concerned about noise levels. If there is <br />no air conditioning how can work be conducted during the suminer months without the doors <br />being open. He didn't think a motorcycle shop was appropriate for the site. Mr.1Vlahoney asked <br />the zoning of the site and surrounding areas. Ms. Wenger said the site is zoned commercial as is <br />to the east and west lots there is only a very small area of residential to the northwest corner of <br />the site. Mr. Mahoney said the last use was a fire house and he did not feel the proposed use <br />would adversely affect the neighborhood. Mr. Pinter said this is not a performance shop it is a <br />restoration shop. Mr. Bassett said he rebuilds engines, tool and die work, and part fabrication so <br />there are less motorcycle noises. Ms. Hinkel noted that there would be no work conducted in the <br />building along the west side as it is all offices or separate compartments all work areas are on the <br />east side of the building. Mr. Bohlmann said he did not believe noise would be an issue at the <br />site and believed that the use would fit the area. Mr. Mahoney voiced his agreement with Mr. <br />Bohlmann. A brief discussion pertaining to requiring the overhead door to remain closed or not <br />during hours of operation ensued. It was noted that the overhead door was glass so requiring it <br />to be closed would not buffer noise. Irrigation was brought up and the commission felt it would <br />not be warranted if the brick pavers were installed. The applicant preferred not to have brick <br />pavers they would like to have more green space. Ms. Wenger pointed out that the only area <br />which would require pavers is the center drive. Mr. O'Malley advised the commission that they <br />were within their right to require pavers along the entire front. Commissioners felt not requiring
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.