My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/16/2003 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2003
>
2003 Architectural Review Board
>
07/16/2003 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:49:16 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 6:39:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2003
Board Name
Architectural Review Board
Document Name
Minutes
Date
7/16/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />"TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE" <br />ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD <br />MINUTES - JULY 16, 2003 <br />CONFERENCE ROOM <br />5:30 P.M. <br />1. ROLL CALL: Vice Chairman Yager called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. <br />PRESENT: K. Schulz, M. Yager, and J. Nader <br />ABSENT: B. Zergott <br />ALSO PRESENT: Building Commissioner D. Conway, Assistant Clerk of Commissions A. Kilbane <br />H. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES: <br />The Architectural Review Board minutes dated June 18, 2003 have been submitted for approval. <br />J. Nader made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by M. <br />Yager. Roll call on the motion: J. Nader and M. Yager - Yes, and K. Schulz - Abstain. <br />III. SIGNS: <br />N. OLD BUSINESS: <br />l. Remington College; 2635 Great Northern Shopping Center: <br />Proposal consists of new exterior iinprovements, new masonry covered entrance to the existing Top's <br />building to accommodate a post secondary school. Note: Planning Commission granted a conditional use <br />permit 1/14/03 and approved the proposal 5/27/03. Architectural Review Board tabled the plans 6/18/03. <br />Variance request was tabled 6/5/03 by the Board of Zoning Appeals. <br />Apvlicant's Presentation <br />Mr. Strelau of ADA Architects came forward to address the board. He indicated that since their last <br />appearance before the board, they have revised their landscaping scheme and they have brought the site <br />lighting package. They have an application with the Board of Zoning Appeals that is still pending. They <br />will appear before that board on August 7 for variances on the site lighting, specifically foot candle levels <br />and set back requirements. Mr. Conway confirmed that information. Mr. Strelau said they originally <br />planned no changes on the site lighting but they are now proposing to go with a new scheme. They will <br />remove existing light poles and fixtures. He pointed out the poles on the site plan. He said there is some <br />under-canopy lighting and a few fixtures on the canopy itsel£ They have internally illuminated signage for <br />the words "Remington College", and some lighting for the flagpole. The type of fixture in the parking field <br />itself is similar to the style currently at the strip center. It is a shoebox type, standard fixture, which will <br />blend in well at Great Northern. They are on 30-foot poles, which is why they need the variance. The <br />under-canopy lights are just the shoebox, recessed type light that will be flush with the canopy. The lights <br />for the sign and flagpole are fixtures that have shielding on them to direct light toward the sign and <br />flagpole. They will use a similar light by the emergency egress doors that mount horizontally and shine <br />down. The colors are dark bronze on the poles, which matches Great Northern. On the building mounted <br />fixtures, they are proposing a light gray finish. <br />Board Ouestions and Comrrients: <br />Mr. Yager asked if the SA fixture on the upper left of the plan will go on the canopy. Mr. Strelau said it <br />would actually be the building fagade. Mr. Yager asked if the fixtures for the flag will be mounted. He <br />asked if they are sure the light will hit the flag. Mr. Strelau said they are proposing shrouds on it because <br />they don't want it to do anything other than hit the flag. Mr. Yager said he wouldn't think they would want <br />to see it on the roof of the canopy either. He commented that they have wall washers and there are three <br />going up the wall yet they have an illuminated sign. He said he thinks they would fight with each other. <br />Mr. Strelau said the "R" is illuminated and the Remington College and the verbiage underneath are post <br />letters and not illuminated at all. He asked for clarification that the board wants him to look at the flag <br />fixtures. Mr. Yager said they probably don't want to see those fixtures sitting on the canopy. There are a <br />lot of different fixtures that can showcase the flag without focusing on the wall. Ms. Schulz asked if they <br />could mount something on the roof. Mr. Strelau said perhaps that is a better place to put it. Mr. Yager <br />mentioned that the applicant was asked to look at proportions and the height of the entry area. Mr. Strelau
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.