03/12/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Architectural Review Board did not want a fence around building 43. The owner also prefers not to have a fence along the back of building #3. Mr. Lasko commented that the residents wanted fence around building 43. Mr. Kula reviewed that a current resident has a fence on their property and they have asked that the fence be removed. He further suggested that the resident agreed to remove the fence. Mr. Maxim commented that he spoke to NLr. Kula and there are existing trees behind building 93 and he would prefer to have the trees then the fence. Mr. Spalding questioned if the applicant was sure he preferred the trees. Mr. Maxim commented that he was sure he preferred the trees. Ms. Dorey voiced that she is satisfied with the current plans. She questioned the type of Iights that would be used in the storage area. Mr. Farrell commented they would be white halide lights throughout the site. Ms. Dorey questioned the drainage for the site. Mr. Farrell assured the board that the water would be maintained on property. Mr. Jordon thanked the board for watching the amount of lighting, saving the trees, and for looking at the'resident's requests. Mr. Spalding questioned the trees in back of building #3. Mr. Hreha commented that if the resident prefers trees then leave the trees not the fence. Mr. Rymarczyk requested the exact height of each type of pole light slated on the site as the new plans and the photometric were not consistent. Mr. Suhayda indicated that light pole (d) in the photometric will be 11-feet and that is the only change. The rest of the light poles will remain the same. Mr. Farrell commented that light poles (b) &(c) are 10-feet high and light pole (a) is 15-feet high. Mr. Rymarczyk suggested that the heights of the lights will be varied throughout the site. Mr. Spalding questioned what the height of the base of the pole lights would be. Mr. Farrell indicated that the base of all the pole lights would be 2-feet high. Mr. Spalding reinarked that Planning Commission wants zero-foot candle readings at the lot line. W. Spalding motioned to approve Halleen KIA; parcels #232-10-025, 232-10-024, and 232-10-023. Proposal consists of renovation of the existing three-(3) buildings and automobile storage. With the following recommendations; (1). Council to uphold the recommendation to have zero-foot candles at lot line. (2). The 6-foot mound with 6-foot board on board or plastic fence run length of mound designated on plans 3/8/02 page Spl. The existing trees around building #3 will remain in tact and the fence will stop at the front east corner of building 93. (3). The landscaping will be placed on the mounds as per plan 3/8/02, page Sp2. The developer will provide a self-irrigation system for the landscaping. (4). The brick on building #1 if possible is to continue along the east side of the building to the fence line as per Architectura] Review Board recommendation. (5). The foresters notes are to be followed and the applicant is to work with the forester to protect the existing trees. (6). The landscaping plan for the west side of building #1 and the corner of Dewey and Lorain Road as per 3/8/02 page Sp3 will be followed. (7). Light pole (d) as recommended will be at 11- feet not as indicated on page Spl of plans. (8). The pole length for light poles (a) be 15-feet, poles (b) be 10-foot and (c) be 10-feet. The motion was seconded by T. Hreha and unanimously approved. Motion Carrned. Note: in the framing of the motion Mr. Farrell asked for clarification as to whether the fence is to be only on the mounds. Mr. Spalding commented the fence is only required to be on the mounds. The clerk announced that the Halleen proposal would go before the Board of Zoning and Development board on March 13, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. No further notices would be sent out. 2. RTA North Olmsted Transit Center: 236-16-014 (Great Northern Blvd. SE of I-480): Proposal consists of a new 300 + car Park-N-Ride lot with a 916 square foot waiting building. Note: Variances may be required. This proposal was tabled at the 2/7/02 and 2/26/02 Planning Commission meeting. Acting Chairman Spalding called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. Ms. Feke; Director of Programming and Planning for RTA, Mr. Shaffer; the Project Manager, and Mr. Terbrack; General Manager for NOMBL came forward to review the proposal. Ms. Feke indicated that RTA is still working with Council regarding emanate domain to acquire remaining property. 2