My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/11/1999 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1999
>
1999 Planning Commission
>
05/11/1999 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:48:01 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 3:43:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1999
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
5/11/1999
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 />improves the appearance and the unit would be negligible from the road. Mr. Hreha asked Mr. <br />Murray to help hiin understand what he meant by the unit being negligible from the road. Mr. <br />Murray indicated that used cars would be parked in front of the unit therefore it would not be <br />seen from Lorain Road. He further coinmented that the owners want to present a proper <br />presentation to the public and they don't want anything that would detract from their business. <br />The site presently looks presentable and has always been well maintained. Mr. Brennan asked <br />how the utilities would be fed to the mobile unit. Mr. Murray suggested the unit would be <br />electrical. Mr. Brennan reinterpreted his question asking how the electrical and gas lines would <br />be supplied to the unit. Would the electrical be fed underground, or from a utility pole, how will <br />all the wiring Ue fed to the mobile unit. Mr. Nardecchia indicated they would do whichever the <br />board preferred. Mr. Brennan commented that it was not up to the Planning Commission to <br />design the unit, it is up to the Commission to review what is being proposed. Mr. Tallon_asked if <br />there would be restrooins in the trailer. Mr. Murray indicated that the restrooms would be <br />located in the main building, and that under the Ohio building code it would be acceptable as <br />long as the main building is within a curtain number of feet. He indicated the present rule was <br />the restroom is to be within 500'feet of the unit. Mr. Tallon asked about the rear of the unit's <br />appearance. Mr. Nardecchia indicated there would be windows in the rear of the unit for <br />visibility. Mr. Tallon asked if there would be an entrance from the rear or just the front. Mr. <br />Murray commented that only the front would have an entrance. Mr. Tallon asked if cars would <br />be parked behind the unit. Mr. Nardecchia indicated cars would be parked behind the trailer, as <br />there is 75'feet available behind the unit. Mrs. O'Rourke asked what was located on the lot that <br />would abut the property the trailer is located on. Mr. Nardecchia suggested cars were parked <br />throughout the area presently and would continue to be once the unit is put in place. Mr. <br />Brennan commented to the chairman that he felt the lot consolidation should be addressed first, <br />as the trailer is contingent upon the consolidation of the two lots. Mr. Tallon agreed that the <br />consolidation of the two lots should be addressed first. Mr. Hreha asked why the owners chose <br />to use a modular unit instead of a brick Uuilding. Mr. Nardecchia suggested other motor car <br />dealers had been using them and that the size of the unit was also a factor. Mr. Brennan <br />suggested he was not in favor of the units, but they are excepted by the state of Ohio therefore <br />the planning commission can only address the esthetics. The State of Ohio is telling us they have <br />done the inspections and have approved the usage of these units. These units go through more <br />inspections than the average structure does. He commented that the City may not like them, and <br />he refers to them as tornado magnets, so all they can do is make them look good. Mr. Koeth <br />cominented that this was the first time the board had reviewed this type of stiucture being used <br />on a lot. He would like to ask the Planning Commission to request the Architectural Review <br />Board pay close attention to the color, the awning, landscaping, and all aspects of the esthetics so <br />that it blends in as inuch as it can. Mr. Brennan indicated he agreed with Mr. Koeth and <br />suggested the case be tabled until the commission received, colors, landscape features, and <br />samples of materials, as the owners have an awning being placed on the unit and they don't <br />know what color it is going to be. Mr. Tallon indicated the board would make recommendations, <br />then send the proposal to the Architectural Review Board for their review. The applicant will <br />then return to the Planning Commission for a final review. Mr. IVlurray indicated that lus notes <br />showed the unit as being beige-gray, and that the site plan shows the landscaping as well as the <br />size of the landscaping boxes and the canopy. Mr. Murray suggested that the owners wanted to <br />work with the City and understand what the City wanted so they could comply. Mr. Brennan <br />commented that the commissioners needed to review how the utilities will be fed to the structure, <br />what color is the awning, will there be signage on the awning, is there lighting on the unit. Right <br />now these plans are incomplete. Mr. Tallon indicated the board wanted all the, utilities going to <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.