My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/14/2000 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2000
>
2000 Planning Commission
>
03/14/2000 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:48:22 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 4:25:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2000
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
3/14/2000
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 />not have needed to be sent back to the Boards if the changes had been proposed within the first <br />year. Mrs. O'Rourke questioned if there was parking in the rear of the building. Mr. Schmidt <br />indicated "no." Mr. Spalding questioned if the signing would remain the same. Mr. Schmidt <br />replied "yes," and the masonry on the west wall will continue to the proposed addition. Mrs. <br />O'Rourke questioned what the exterior would be like on the south and east wall. Mr. Schmidt <br />indicated that the south wall would be the metal siding that is now on the existing buildino, and the <br />easterly wall has masonry for the first 8 feet and then metal, but since there is an offset of 50 feet, <br />the firewall isn't required. Mr. Schmidt indicated that if he offsets the wall, he would run the side <br />into the ground, that it would give the ability for the building to access a loading dock at a future <br />date. Mr. Spalding questioned if there are loading docks presently at the building. Mr. Schmidt <br />indicated "no," but the loading dock area would be used if the building usage were to change. <br />Mr. Conway indicated the plans would indicate loading docks and the parking would be gone if <br />the usage of the building ever changes. He indicated that Soccer Sportsplex would not be puttirig <br />the loading docks in but would show the docks for the ability to put the docks in place if needed. <br />Mrs. O'Rourke questioned if the lighting on the rear of the building were wall packs. Mr. Schmidt <br />indicated there are presently two-400 watt metal waH packs on the rear of the building used for <br />security purposes. He indicated there were 300 watts but are going down to 200 watt timed bulbs <br />to go off at midnight. Mr. Tallon questioned what type of lighting the fixtures were. Mr. <br />Schmidt replied "wall-back". Mr. Tallon questioned if the lights were forward throw. Mr. <br />Schmidt replied "yes". Mr. Tallon indicated the Soccer Sportsplex needed a downward throw <br />for a wash, no forward throw. If the lighting is used for the parking lot then install pole lights in <br />the rear of the property that go forward and allows for zero tolerance. Mr. Tallon indicated the <br />use of only wall washers, but no forward throw. Mr. Schmidt is concerned that the lighting will <br />cast too much lighting on a brick wall that would produce a focal point shining back on the <br />drivers on I-480. Nlrs. O'Rourke questioned the hours of the building. Mr. Schmidt indicated <br />that on Friday nights the building is open until 1:00 am. Mrs. O'Rourke indicated she is <br />concerned with safety. Mr. Conway indicated that when he mentioned the lights in the rear of the <br />building, he wasn't referring to aiming the lights toward the building. He also indicated the lights - <br />were downward lights, parking lot lights that are 10 feet tall, 200-300 watt lights used for security <br />purposes. Mr. Conway indicated the lights are wall washers that just shine down and have zero <br />tolerance at the lot line. Mrs. O'Rourke questioned if another dumpster would be added. Mr. <br />Schmidt replied "no," and then indicated the access door is located in the offset and the existirig <br />employees would be able to have access to the dumpster. Mr. Conway questioned where the <br />doors would be located. Mr. Schmidt indicated that there are exit doors on the east wall and on <br />the west wall of the proposed addition and on the east and west sides of the existing building. <br />Mr. Conway questioned if there would be lighting above the exit door. Mr. Schmidt replied <br />"yes," for security purposes. Mr. Schmidt questioned if the doors were "man doors" Mr <br />Schmidt replied "yes". Mr. Tallon questioned if the exterior of the building will be the same as the <br />existing building. Mr. Schmidt replied "yes", the masonry would match on the westerly wall and <br />on the easterly wall there will have metal siding all the way to the ground. Mr. Tallon questioned <br />why the easterly wall would be metal. Mr. Schmidt replied that because of the cost and not <br />needing a firewall, it will be the same as the south wall. Mr. Tallon suggested the addition to the <br />existing building should match all the way around; the architecture should remain the same. Mr. <br />Conway indicated that elimination of parking would not be needed, the parking should not be an <br />issue since no extra seating area or bleachers would be added to the facility. Mr. Tallon <br />? <br />1 <br />3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.