03/16/1988 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MARCH 16, 1988 PArE 3 Thoro-kate waterproofing in a pearl gray; roof top units will be 30 inches high, placed on a 14 inch curb, behind the 20 feet 8 inch sign bank, no screening is to be nrovided to the rear because they believe the landscapebuff,er in the rear will be adequate screening. Mr. Zergott believes that these uiiits should be screened in the rear for sound as well as visibility and also pointed out that one dumnster on the plan shows na screening. Mr. Seaman advised that they will screen with the same board on board fence that is planned f.or the rear. Mr. Pattison advised that he does have a personal conflict with this nroposal since he is a resident of the subdivision that is affected by this project, and stated that he would abstain from votiiig, explaining that the Board has acted with only two members in the nast. He requested permission from the developers to address the Board so that they have a basis on which to act since he is the only professional on the Board. Mr. Valore, attorney for the developers, stated that they have no objection since they are present to resolve any questions or prob lems. Mr. Pattison made.several points; .1) it has been a policy of the Board not to accept masonry- units on the sides or back of buildings, and have usually suggested,.as a minimum treatment, an integrall,y colored masonry material similar to what they are using on the front columns; 2) side elevations (particularly the one facing Lorain Road) provide a minimal parapet or screening of the mechanical units and no screening is nro- vided in the rear;3)'.hequestioned how electrical service is being brought into the project and was advised by the developers that the lines would be underground, not racked, and there would only be meters on the rear of the building and they would be located below the fence line; 4) he is suggesting that, instead of wall mounted fixtures on the rear of the building, that low post lights be installed approximatelv 2 feet from the northern most curb of the fire access drive and that the lights be directed away from the residences and toward the building. Mr. Seaman stated that from the information urovided by the manufacturer they do not believe the light would spill over beyond the fence; Mr. Kount noiuted out that the lights could be angled to reduce reflection off the building, and stated that there would.be 70 feet between the back of the building and the residential propert,y at the narrowest point. Law Director Gareau stated that he is involved in litigation regardiiig lighting and that the manufacturers do not address glare and believes that Mr. Pattisons remarks are well founded. Mr. Pattison further advised the developer, that the Board has never addressed the architectural style of buildings, since there is no specified st_yl.e for the city, but he cautioned them that this particular st,yle of architecture is the only style that there has been complaints about from the residents, but pointed out that this color scheme is more in keeping Grith the sur- rounding buildings. He believes that the architectural details are consisteait throughout, but pointed out that the peaked roof section at the midpoint of the elevation tends to spring from some place between the columns and suggested that they consider a secor.id pair of columns and the possibility of spreading the roof and raising the peak might be a solution. He also suggested reducing the bases of the columns. He further presented the developers with an overlay of their site plan, which, he believes, would yie ld the same number of parking spaces; would put more spaces closer to the building; would improve traffic cir- culation; would give them 10 feet of green snace between their prouerty