My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/18/1998 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1998
>
1998 Architectural Review Board
>
03/18/1998 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:47:51 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 3:24:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1998
Board Name
Architectural Review Board
Document Name
Minutes
Date
3/18/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
e <br />the conditional use permit approved and requested a meeting date where this can be discussed in <br />more detail. The clerk explained that plauning commission recommended that council approve <br />the conditional use permit and the proposal did not have to return to planning commission. Mr. <br />Conway added the conditional use request is not approved until finalized by a vote of city council. <br />He recommended that the residents contact the clerk of council for information on meeting dates. <br />An unidentified resident suggested expanding into the commercial areas. Mr. Yager maintained <br />this review board has no control over where the developer chooses to expand. Mr. Zergott <br />elaborated this board attempts to make developments more appealing, but cannot rule on whether <br />this development should be permitted or how many parking spots are permitted etc. Mrs. Collier <br />questioned if the comments from the residents will be in the minutes, and the board agreed <br />everyone would be on record. She requested that the city officials protect the nature of this <br />residential neighborhood. Mr. H'ilpert wondered how long the fence would be and was advised <br />approximately 400 feet. Mr. I?'ilpert noted at the last planning commission meeting the abutting <br />neighbor requested that the fence line stop far enough away from the right-of-way line so as not <br />to obstruct the residents view when entering/exiting his driveway. Mr. Conway advised the fence <br />should be far enough back so as not to obstruct the resident's view of the sidewalk. Mr: Zergott <br />questioned if there is room along Columbia Road to extend the landscaping along the entire east <br />side of the property as there were only six Austrian Pines shown along Columbia Road. The issue <br />of signage will be addressed at a later date. Mr. Liggett noted he likes how the building <br />expansion has been laid out, however, he despised the metal fence down near the grou.nd. He <br />suggested continuing the masonry material or another unit that will compliment the void 'mside <br />there. Mr. Yager questioned what the first level screen wall will hide. W. Libassi stated this is a <br />delivery area and there is also an emergency generator. It was noted there is an existing canopy <br />that will remain, and there will be a new canopy at the south side entrance. Mr. Yager liked the <br />plan but on the south elevation, he recommended placing reveals in the block on the north side of <br />the south elevation to suggest some playfulness with the window patterning. Mr. Libassi advised <br />he would like to do some things with the canopy, however the funds are not available. Mr. Yager <br />suggested that they find the funds to do something with the canopy so that the building looks <br />more updated. He recommended that t,his be resubmitted with the signage for an independent <br />review so that it would not have to come back before the board. An unidentified resident <br />questioned if their tax dollars would go towards the construction of this canopy. Mr: Liggett <br />advised the canopy would be purely the owners expense. The same resident questioned if the city <br />would benefit from this development. Mr. Zergott suggested that the resident raise this issue at <br />the council meeting. Mr. Yager reiterated the boards goal is to take the plans submitted and <br />suggest changes to make the submittal as nice as possible. He noted this board cannot reject <br />construction outright, but can make recommendations to make the building and site look it's very <br />best. Mr. Collier stated the point in presenting their ideas to the developer is to promote a better <br />altemative. In addition to increasing the landscaping along Columbia Road, Mr. Zergott <br />suggested using larger trees. He noted a survey was not conducted on the amount of trees being <br />removed because of the new parking lot. Mr. Priest noted the gray tone trees will be removed, <br />and the dark tone trees will remain. Mr. Zergott suggested adding some Maples or Oak trees to <br />the back green space along the northem portion as the Euonymus are not going to look good <br />from the outside. Mr. Zergott would like to see a revised landscaping plan prior to this going to <br />the b.z.d. committee of counciL As there were a number of trees close to the new parking, Mr. <br />Zergott requested that the city forester be provided with information on the proposal so that we
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.