My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/11/2011 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2011
>
2011 Planning and Design Commission
>
05/11/2011 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:47:39 PM
Creation date
1/25/2019 7:59:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2011
Board Name
Planning & Design Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
5/11/2011
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
PLANNIleTG & DESIGN COMIVIISSION <br />CITY OF NORTH OLMSTEID <br />MINUTES FOR MAY 11, 2011 <br />ROLL CALL <br />Mrs. Meredith called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers and led the Pledge <br />of Allegiance. <br />Present: Melissa Meredith, Greg Malone, Ralph Bohlmann, Don Rerko, Robert Parry, Marlc <br />Mahoney <br />Absent: Jeffrey Peepers <br />Staff: Planning and Development Director Kimberly Wenger, Assistant Law Director Bryan <br />O'Malley, City Engineer Pietro DiFranco, Building Commissioner Dale Mitchell, <br />Clerk of Commissions Donna Rote <br />REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES <br />Ms. Meredith moved, seconded by Mr. Rerko, to approve the Planning and Design <br />Commission minutes of Apri127, 2011 which was approved 6-0. <br />OLD BUSINESS <br />CMS10-35: Gyro GeorjZe; 30791 Lorain Road <br />Representatives: Allen Kacenjar, attorney; George Glyptis, owner <br />Ms. Wenger reviewed the previous recommendations of the Commission and the submission of <br />the applicant. She said that the plan lacked much of what the Commission had requested. <br />Property maintenance issues must be addressed regardless of the proposal submitted. Mr. <br />Mitchell said a site inspection showed the grass had not been mowed the dumpster is outside the <br />enclosure, the fence is still in disrepair as is the dumpster enclosure and the paint on the building <br />is starting to peel. Mr. O'Malley reviewed that property maintenance issues were required to be <br />addressed no matter the outcome of the proposal; they are required by code to bring their site <br />into compliance. <br />Mr. Kacenjar said his client purchased the building and had to paint it because of graffiti on two <br />sides of the building. The color palette consists of corporate colors, the building was painted <br />white and shingles blue. It is his understanding that the commission doesn't like the blue and <br />white building so he toolc photos around the community of other buildings which have blue and <br />white configurations. Therefore he does not believe the color is the issue nor is his client trying <br />to say he won't address property maintenance issues. His client will comply with all building <br />code violations. However to date neither he nor his client has received any listing of violations <br />or letters stating there are property maintenance issues. The plan which has been submitted <br />suggests $15,000 of improvements which is significant as the site is not a revenue generating <br />site. His client is willing to make some of the investments but needs to make them over time. <br />He distributed photos of buildings that were white with blue shingles. The blue colored shingles <br />can not be produced by a shingle company. A shingle was submitted for review and retained for
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.