My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/19/2003 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2003
>
2003 Architectural Review Board
>
11/19/2003 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:49:16 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 6:36:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2003
Board Name
Architectural Review Board
Document Name
Minutes
Date
11/19/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
inodular and the other brick will be Olde Midland #8307 Glen Gary brick. Mrs. Nader <br />questioned the difference in the plans. On the plans the drive-through is shown as CMU block <br />however on the elevations it shows brick. Ms. Caserta assured the board the entire building <br />would be brick there is no CMCT block. 1VIr. Crook voiced a concern with the direction of the <br />traffic entering and existing, as during peak hours the traffic is very backed up at the <br />intersection. He requested that the small island be removed or aligned with the Shell Station <br />and CVS Pharmacy to control the traffic flow better. He requested the dumpster area be <br />placed on the north east corner of the site to get it away from the residents. He questioned <br />what would be done with the existing pylon sign. Ms. Caserta indicated that they would be <br />replacing the pylon sign with a new one, which will be raised a little. Mr. Crook felt that <br />traffic pattern should be carefully looked at because the area already has traffic issues. Mr. <br />Zergott noticed that most of the landscaping on the plans is very low lying and suggested <br />using larger vegetation including pines. The south side abutting the neighbors should screen <br />the parking area more. Ms. Caserta suggested that there was an existing board on board <br />fence that would remain in place. However, they will look at improving the landscaping plan. <br />Mr. Conway suggested landbanking some of the parking along the south s'ide to further <br />buffer the residents and change the parking spaces to angled parking which would also <br />increase the green space area. He further suggested that the landscaping along the west front <br />side should be 20-feet wide throughout not tapered. He reviewed that required parking spaces <br />are based upon the number of seats within the building. Mr. Crook understood some of the <br />color elements that are needed for their company's identity however, there does not need to be <br />so much purple. He liked the brown brick but preferred the red, and would like to see the <br />purple awnings removed. To accent the main entrances they could use the purple brick on the <br />two tall walls. Mr. Vayda suggested only using awnings over the dinning vestibule, and <br />drive-though vestibule in the corporate stripes and having the tall walls the purple brick. They <br />would use the light color brick for the banding. Ms. Nader requested clarification of the brick <br />colors and how they would be used. Ms. Caserta indicated that the pylons/masses would be <br />merlot brick color, striped awnings at the north, and south entrances, purple awnings at the <br />front and south sides. The cornice will be the other brick color with the merlot brick band. <br />Mr. Vayda questioned if the merlot band would be around the parapet. Mr. Zergott indicated <br />that was correct. He questioned if the board could request the applicants return so the board <br />could see the changes after they attend Planning Commission. Mr. O'Malley reviewed that <br />the board was within their rights to approve the proposal with conditions, which can be <br />outlined in the motion; and a condition of the approval. Architectural Review Board can then <br />request that the new plans.be submitted for one of the Architectural Review Board members <br />to review. Mr. Zergott suggested that there are site plan changes.that have been requested <br />that he felt should be returned. Mr. O'Malley advised that the board could request the <br />applicants return with the new renderings. Mr. Conway commented that he would like to see <br />the plan go before Planning Commission with the recommendations incorporated into their <br />drawings. Planning Commission may have issues brought up for the Architectural Review <br />Board to look at so they could return next month under old business. Mr. Vayda assured the <br />board that they would have all the changes ready for Planning Commission and return to the <br />Architectural Review Board. Mr. Crook questioned where the rooftop units would be placed. <br />Mr. vayda reviewed that the building itself is 18.5 feet high but the roof itself is only 13 feet <br />high which will hide the roof top units. The 5 units will be placed on the north end of the roof <br />away from the residents. Mr. Crook questioned if there would be any lighting on the <br />building and reminded the applicants there is to be zero readings at the lot lines. Mr. Zergott <br />requested the applicants have fixture cuts of the sconces at the next meeting. He questioned <br />what type of windows would be used. Mr. Dalpiaz indicated that the windows would be <br />aluminum thermo-guard glass. Mr. Vayda questioned if the board would approve landscape <br />islands around the site to break up the parking or angle parking along the south side. Mr. <br />8
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.