04/14/1998 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . the other a coinpromise proposal from the developer. The safety department reviewed the proposal coucerning the access drives off Country Club Blvd. and their recommendation was to have one access drive off Couutry Club Blvd. along with a shared access drive with Homestead Village to the west. The city forester has reviewed the proposal and determined what trees would need to be saved on the site. Mr. Nemecek presented a copy of the forester's report, dated March 30, 1997. W. Melby noted the awning will have a matte finish, be non-illuminated, and the logo will be removed off the front of the canopy. The photometrics were presented showing zero foot candles at the property lines. After stating they have fulfilled planning commission's requests at the March 10, 1998 meeting, 1VIr. Melby requested a favorable vote on the proposal. Mr. Brennan advised the commission requested that the developer come back with cut sheets on lighting fixtures and mounting heights of wall pack fixtures. Mr. Melby explained the wall pack lights have been elinvnated and he presented cut sheets on the parking lot lighting. Mr. Tallon stated the commission will need the right set of drawings showing the lighting, lighting poles, topography showing the layout of the land. He questioned what the markings on the drawing indicate and was informed by Mr. Nemecek that tlus indicates the contour's of lighting. Mr. Tallon then questioned if it was foot candles or lumens and was informed foot candles. Mr. Koeth requested more information concerning the gazebo materials and landscaping around the gazebo. Mr. Melby explained they will be using a local landscape architect, and the materials and landscaping have already been presented before the board of zoning appeals and architectural review board. He advised the landscape architect has the material samples presentation, therefore that could not be presented tonight. Mr. Koeth requested that the developer provide the material samples for the gazebo when this comes back before the commission. Mr. Melby explained they are proposing to use an octagon red wood detail, and apologized for not having the samples. Mr. Tallon noted there was a variance request for room sizes. Mr. Melby covfirmed this was for 93 rooms which did not meet code by approximately 10 square feet for each room, or roughly 1000 feet overalL Mr. Tallon questioned what the perimeter numbers are on the photometrics and Mr. Nemecek coufu-ined there would be zero tolerance as requested by plauning commission. Mr. Brennan requested a copy of the eastern elevation signage. Mr. Melby stated this is where the architectural review board recommended brick in the gable area, but they are proposing to stop the brick at three stories which he believed would be more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Tallon opened up the meeting for audience participation. Councilman McKay stated he attended the architectural review board meetiugs and Mr. Yager, one of the architects on the board, had initially suggested that the entire building be brick. Mr. McKay read a recent letter posted in the local paper in which Mr. Knight, a past citizen of the year, complained that North Olmsted never requires brick buildings or anyone to put up class buildings as they do in Westlake. One example used was Rite Aid, as the Westlake building is all brick, yet the recently approved North Olmsted building barely contains any brick. He complimented Mr. Yager's efforts in trying to make the city of North Olmsted more aesthetically pleasing and encouraged plauuing commission to help make class buildings a requirement in North Olmsted. Mr. Koeth questioned what Mr. McKay thought about the fact the board of zoniug granted the variances for room sizes. Mr. McKay advised when board of zoning appeals makes a ruling, the only way it can be overturned is if someone takes it to court. His position was the zoning code should be followed in this situation as he did not believe there was evidence of a hardship with complying to the code. R Tallon moved to table Candlewood hotel until the April 28, 1998 meeting at which time the developer shall present the following: a copy of the elevations incorporating the arclutectural review board's recommendations in their entirety; the cuts for fixtures and poles should be incorporated on the lighting plan of all pertinent elevations; and a landscaping view of the gazebo should be presented. The motion was seconded by R Koeth and uuanimously approved. Mr. Conway questioned if the ? architectural review board has reviewed this counter proposal. Mr. Nemecek advised arclutectural ` review board reviewed the couuter proposal on March 26, 1998 and he displayed their