04/24/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

were two different lending institutions. Mr. Cerny replied yes. Mr. Tallon replied that is understandable. Mr. Conway suggested that as this project goes L?. through, the city needs a clear definition on the phasing of this project. Mr. Tallon indicated that the board needs a ruling from the Law Department on the easement so Mr. Hammerschtnidt and the architect should sit down and figure out exactly how they should phase this and give them the exact phasing of it. Where you're going to start from, where you're going to finish, how long it will take each phase, and when you come back next time bring us a11 of that information. He then indicated this was because he didn't want to see a half finished building sit for three years and then they finally decide to finish it. Mr. Tallon then questioned if this project had been to the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Conway replied no. Mr. Tallon commented that they have to go to Architectural Review Board yet, they have to get the easement figured out, and then they will return to the Planning Commission with the phase plan. He questioned light fixture Design #125 shows the bulb and the lens extending down beyond the fixture. The board would like to have. that flush so that nothing sticks out down below the fixture. IVIi-. Cerny indicated that the fixture is the same fixture that is currently installed on the building that they're matching. Mr. Tallon indicated that they should get the fixtures that make the light recessed and not below the fixture. They do not want to see glare. The whole idea is to maintain the lighting on your property with the least amount of glare. W. Tallon questioned where the light fixtures design SNDY are located on _the building. W. Cerny indicated that those would be going out in front of the walkway area. Mr. Tallon questioned the height and wattage of those fixtures. lili-. Cerny indicated they would be 12 ft. poles and at 175 watts. They are just to get some light on the walkway area. The lights in the rear of the building will be at 16-ft. height and read 0 at the lot line. The clerk announced the time and date of the next Architectural Review Board meeting. R. Ta11on motioned to move Fieldstone Development of S/L 11 Industrial 1'kwy. on to the Architectural Review Board. The Law Department should have a ruling on the easement by the next time this proposal returns to the Planning Commission and a complete phasing of the building should be submitted by the developer next meeting. The motion was seconded by C. Allan and was unanimously approved. 1Vlotion Carried 4/24/01. 3. Braulio Roldan (Roldan's Car Servicel• 23055 Lorain Rd Proposal consists of adding a Sunroom/Storage to the existing structure. Note: Planiung Commission heard this proposal4/25/00 & 3/27/01. Board of Zoning Appeals granted variances 5/4/00. Architectural Review Board reviewed this proposal 4/18/01. Chairman T'allon called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. No applicant came forward to review the proposal. R. Tallon motioned to table Braulio Roldan of 23055 Lorain Rd. until the next regularly scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by K. O'Rourke and -unanimously approved. Tabled 4/24/01. 4