06/09/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

: ? ? CITY OF NORTH OLMSTID PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES--JUNE 9, 1992 *7'30 P.M.* I. ROLL CALL: Chairman Gorris called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. Present: R. Bowen, L. Orlowski, A.. Skoulis, J. Thomas, and B. Gorris. Absent: T. Morgan and R. Ta11on. Also Present: Assistant La.w Director Dubelko, City Engineer Deichmann, Building Comnissioner Conway, and Clerk of Commissions Oring. II. REVIEnT AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES: The review of minutes will be deferred imtil the end of the meeting. III. BUILDING DEPARTLKENTr REQUESTS: Habitat, 4687 Great Northern Boulevard. Proposal for exterior renovation to a unit in an existing sliopping center. Heard by Architectural Review Board on May 20, 1992. Building Commissioner Conway advised that the Board of Zoning Appeals ha.d approved an 88 square foot vaxiance for the wall sign and 83 square foot variance for total sign area contingent on Planning _Commission approving the renovations to the facade. The variance granted ha.d been down sized from the original request of 185 square feet and he explained that the maximiun axea allowed for a wall sign is 75 square feet total. Mr. Gorris pointed out that this would be a 163 square foot sign. Mr. Solin, who ha.d been unable to attend Architectural Review Board, had looked at tYie rendering after the meeting and had approved it with the condition that the mansaxd on the remainder of the building.be painted to match the Dri=vit and also, if they are using Dri-vit on the columns, brick should be installed at a wainscot height to protect them. Mr. Shepherd, representing Habitat, preserited the rendering of the entire center as requested at the previous meeti.ng. Mr. Thomas pointed out tha.t the perspective of the rendering reduced the size of the sign iri relation to the rest of the building. He believed that the B.Z.A. had approved the sign contingent on P1arLninv Commission's approval and tha,t A.R.B.. a.lso made suggestions to the Commission in the event that the proposal was approved. He was still not convinced that a massive sign like this, dominating a snall center, was appropriate. Mr. Shepherd Understood that the Commission was only to review the facade of the building, and that they, in turn, had asked the A.R.B. to review to ascertain if the height of the facade was in keeping with the total development; if this proposal conformed to past recommendations; to look at the size of lettering in comparison to the other stores; to advise if the materials would be compatible with the other materials, (in reference to that they had agreed to paint the remaining alUminum mansard to match the Dri-vit); and to review the appearance of side and rear elevations. He further stated that Mr. Sohn had reviewed the proposal after the meeting and had approved the proposal if the mansard was painted and had suggested that they protect the Dri-vit columns with brick and he pointed out that since the colturms were brick at present they could be left as is. Mr. Thoma.s explained tha.t the variance was granted subject to the Commissions acceptance, and that the A.R.B. is an advisory body to the Commission, and are usually asked to make suggestions 1