My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/14/2000 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2000
>
2000 Planning Commission
>
11/14/2000 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:48:16 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 4:18:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2000
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
11/14/2000
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
/ <br /> <br />R. Tallon indicated that Cinnamon Lake Subdivision; Rezoning Request was also tabled until <br />meeting next. <br />V. COMMUNICATIONS: <br />1. The Planning Corrunission needs to review the following ordinance: Ordinance 2000-140; an <br />ordinance creating new section 1139.13 of chapter 1139 of the zoning code, entitled "Masonry <br />Brick Required in Construction of Exterior Walls of Commercial Buildings". To require that all <br />new commercial buildings in the general retail business district have exterior walls with a certain <br />amount of masonry brick. <br />Chairman Tallon read allowed the ordinance proposed. Mr. Hreha suggested that at the time <br />Dillard's was approved a bank was mentioned in Beachwood that was all marble, does that mean <br />they would not be allowed to build a marble bank in North Olmsted. ' Mr. Tallon indicated that if <br />that were the case the applicant could request a variance. This ordinance just says the majority of <br />the building has to be brick. Mr. Hreha indicated that he was not in favor for this ordinance as it <br />would only cause more variance requests. Mr. Allan indicated that he was not in favor of this <br />ordinance either, as it is not a federally mandated sa.fety issue. Therefore, it is only an esthetic <br />issue. Mr. Tallon commented that without this ordinance in place a developer can say he does not <br />want to use brick on his building. Mr. Rymarczyk requested a definition for the words masonry <br />brick. Mr. Tallon suggested that there should be some type of definition from the masonry <br />association as to a definition. Mr. Allan questioned the assistant law Director about defining the <br />word masonry, he questioned if it should be defined in the ordinance. N1r. Dubelko suggested <br />that he agreed with Mr. Allan and Mr. Rymarczyk, the word masonry should have a definition so <br />that it is clear what is being said. That does not mean that it has to be a definition that every one <br />is going to agree upon, but there should be a definition in the ordinance. The City can make a list <br />stating masonry brick shall include, but not limited to, then list examples and the rest would be <br />like and similar. Mr. Allan questioned if there was a neighboring city that had a brick ordinance. <br />Mr. Dubelko indicated that he was not sure of any other city having the same ordinance that was <br />propused. This ordinance is not a slam-dunk there is a state building code and the city has to <br />make sure that it is not against the building code. He has tried to write this ordinance to protect <br />the improvement of the city as council has voiced a concern about the materials being used on <br />new structures. Mr. Tallon believed that the biggest concern of the residents in the City is that <br />there are not enough buildings being built today that are brick. Mr. Koeth questioned if the <br />reason for the ordinance was the amount of E.F.I.S. buildings being proposed. Mr. Dubelko <br />indicated that was part of the reason. Mr. Hreha questioned what was so wrong with E.F.I. S. <br />Mr. Tallon indicated that the biggest coinplaint froin the residents is that there is not enough <br />brick. This ordinance is to help the City acquire the esthetically pleasing buildings the residents <br />want to see. Mr. Asseff indicated then what the City is saying is you can use any building material <br />as long as it is brick. 1V1r. Tallon responded "yes". Mr. Spalding indicated that he liked brick and <br />would favor the ordinance but wondered about a common wall having to be brick. Mr. Tallon <br />indicated that the first building up on the site has to include 75% brick after that if there is an <br />addition they can ask for a variance. Mr. Spalding commented that he liked brick so he would <br />support the ordinance. Mr. Allan remarked that he liked brick, but he does not see how the City <br />can mandate that every building be brick. He believes that this needs to be looked at again before <br />it is passed. Mr. Spalding indicated that the zoning laws can help the community be uniformly <br />planned. The vision 2000 committee is concerned about the streets and buildinas along Lorain <br />Road looking good, and this ordinance could help that. Mr. Deichmann indicated that brick is <br />7
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.