Laserfiche WebLink
oi <br />c <br />fence continued all tlie way across, the back of the property to prevent children from cutting <br />through the residential land. He was clisabled and wondered if the developer would assist in <br />triinming the trees on the property as the previous owner of the property did. Mr. Tallon stated <br />the fence constructed should be high enough to buffer the residents, but if it needs to be over six <br />feet (due to the drop off of the lot) mounding should be utilized to extend the height. He added <br />the fence should be aligned in a ma.nner so as to save the existing trees. Mr. Fisher agreed to <br />raise the issue of the fence with his civil engineer. <br />R. Tallon moved to table the proposal until the Ju1y 14, 1998 meeting in the mean time the <br />proposal will be refened to: the safety department and traffic engineer for their input on the <br />tra?'ic flow for this property; the city forester for review of the existing trees; the architectural <br />review board on June 17, 1998; and the board of zoning appeals on Ju1y 2, 1998. Mr. Conway <br />stated, before architectural review board, sign sizes will need to be identified and a plan will be <br />needed prior to the architectural review board meeting. Mr. Fisher agreed to have the sign <br />people prepare a package prior to the architectural review board meeting. The clerk advised: <br />architectural review board will meet at 5:30 P.M. on 7une 17, 1998; board of zoning appeals on <br />July 2, 1998 at 7:30 P.M.; and this will return to plauniug commission at 7:30 P.M. on July 14, <br />1998 provided the proposal is not held up' at any other boards. The motion was seconded by K <br />O'Rourke and unauimously approved. <br />R. Tallon motioned to recommend that board of zoning appeals: approve the front setback <br />variances setback variance at 69 feet; approve the side setback variance at 67 feet; deny any <br />signage variances; and the driveway is to be realigned 90 degrees to the street so variances <br />should not be needed. Mr. Fisher requested clarification on the signage recommendation. Mr. <br />Conway advised the sign ordinance permits one wall sigu, but does permit ground signs and <br />> canopy signs in addition. He stated board of zoning appeals may take into consideration this is a <br />corner lot and grant more than one wall sign. Planuing Commission merely makes a <br />recommendation, board of zoning appeals makes the final decision on the signage presentation. <br />Mr. Conway advised the developer to submit their request as they see fit and we will have <br />architectural review board comment on it, but the'board of zoning appeals will make the final <br />decision. Mr. Tyson believed he could provide a good argument supporting the fact it is critical <br />to have signage on both sides of the building. Mr. Tallon stated he could understand the two <br />sign faces but five signs are too many. Mr. Fisher questioned if the logo is considered signage. <br />Mr. Conway confirmed logos are considered signage and are subject to architectural review <br />board approval. The motion was seconded by W. Spalding and unanimously approved. <br />N. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: <br />1) Crete Properties Consolidation Plat. <br />The proposal is to combine land designated as permanent parcel Numbers, 237-01-006 and <br />237-04-001 into one (1) parcel located onthe south side ofLorain Road: west-adjacent to the <br />new North Olmsted Fire Station. Zoning is Retail Business, General and the proposal <br />conforms to frontage and area requirements of the zoning code. <br />Mr. Valore presented the consolidation plat. In response to a question from Mr. Spald.ing, <br />Mr. Valore confirmed he owns both properties. Mr. Tallon questioned if consolidating these <br />properties will effect the development plans. Mr. Valore advised this consolidation will have <br />no effect on the development. Mr. Conway elaborated part of the development depended on <br />7 ..