My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/17/1998 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1998
>
1998 Architectural Review Board
>
06/17/1998 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:47:50 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 3:22:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1998
Board Name
Architectural Review Board
Document Name
Minutes
Date
6/17/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
.,.? <br />this wall matters as long as they reface it to match the C. V. S. building. Mr. Yager accepted <br />the brick as well as the stucco in the sign band area but had some concerns regard.ing the <br />plexiglass materiaL The clerk questioned if there was a print out available showing the style, <br />colors, and manufacturors of the materials. Although Mr. Petros did not have a colored <br />rendering of the building, he assured the board all materials will match the C. V. S. building <br />and agreed to provide the clerk with a listing of materials for the file. Mr. Yager noted the <br />proportions of the sign facia takes away from the columns, as it appears as if the facia is <br />pushing down the columns rather than the columns supporting the building. He suggested <br />taking eight to ten inches off the sign band area to allow for the enlargement of the columns. <br />Mr. Zergott suggested incorporating brick along the bottom 2 or three feet of the building as <br />the E.F.I. S. system will deteriorate over time. Mr. Petros agreed to raise the columns <br />accordingly and incorporate the brick along the bottom two feet of the building as suggested. <br />Mr. Yager noted there are to be no visible mechanical units and questioned the height of the <br />parapet. Mr. Petros stated the parapet is approximately 18 inches high and he agreed to hide <br />the roof top equipment. It was noted the doors in the back will be painted to match the <br />brick. <br />M. Yager motioned to recommend approval of the Retail Today (Former Krogars <br />Supermarket) located on the East side of Clague Road, South adjacent to the proposed CVS <br />Pharmacy, a proposal consisting of renovations and reduction of existing structure, with the <br />following comments: that the columns grow to be more in porportion and reduce the <br />phyisical size of the sign band to accomodate it; that the brick base be high enough to absorb <br />any punishment from the carts and such; and that there be no visible mechanical units. The <br />motion was seconded by B. Zergott and unanimously approved. It was noted final approval <br />on this submission may be delayed until August, as council has taken a vacation for the entire <br />month of July. <br />2) Bakers Square 24025 Lorain Road: <br />Proposal consists of exterior re-imaging, lighting, and signage. Refened by planning <br />commission May 26, 1998. Mr. Forester, architect presented the proposal and introduced <br />W. Tapanic, local general manager and Mr. Bateman, local associate manager. Mr. Forester <br />explained the proposal includes: adding one pole light with fixture on the north side of the <br />building; adding an extra fixtu.re to the existing pole lights that are directed toward the <br />restaurant; painting the outside ofthe building; replacing the front entry doors; replacing the <br />roof with a new standing seam metal roof in lieu of concrete tile; a new gable dormer on the <br />front elevation to allow an area for wall signage; incoiporating roof lights to match other <br />Baker's Square buildings in the area; adding some accent lighting to the front to outline the <br />roof; and the overhead soffit lights will be replaced with directional down light only. <br />Photographs were presented showing what the building is to look like during different times <br />of the day and iught. Mr. Yager questioned if there is any overIlow from the street light at <br />the front of the building onto this lot. Mr. Forester responded generally the street lights <br />would have little illumination on the lot as they are d.irected towards the street. He noted the <br />amount of illumination from the existing street lights were not included in the photometric <br />plan presented. In response to a question from Mr. Yager, Mr. Forester agreed the style of <br />the lights would match the existing. He stated the pole lights will have both a rear integral <br />cut-off shield as well as an external and side mounted shield. The intent of using the shields <br />was to reduce the amount of lighting to zero foot candles at the property line: Pictures were <br />presented showing the lights mounted on the roof top. In reviewing the drawings, Mr. Yager <br />noted the fixhue style for the roof lights will detract from the appearance of the building. He
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.