Laserfiche WebLink
<br />were revised during the original discussions with Mr. Pozek. After some of the <br />tile had been installed, Building Commissioner Conway advised them that the tile <br />was to be different based on the color of the paint. Mr. Gilbert explained that <br />the number of tile colors for exterior tile is limited and they are presenting <br />some sample colors that are available to compliment the approved Sherwin William <br />Ming Red which is more muted than their usual red. The znembersh discussed the <br />colors. Mr. Pepperny explained that their exterior tile is imported from Europe <br />and there are few choices. It was clarified that there would be two courses of <br />red above the windows and three or four tyelow the window. The Architectural <br />Review Board had required that, if a variance is granted for a pole sign on this <br />site, it must have a flat finish, it cannot be glossy. Mr. Pepperny advised that <br />the white tile presented tonight will match the Everest White paint, and it is <br />more muted than the Bright White that they normally use. The members discussed <br />the colors among themselves. Tao tiles, numbers 8885 C.T.D and 8584 C.T.D. were <br />considered. Mr. Gilbert stated that if they cannot have their usual Carnival Red, <br />Rally's would prefer the 8584 which is closer to their color. The members agreed <br />and will ask Mr. Sohn of the Architectural Review Board to review that with the <br />white tile. Mr. Skoulis taas concerned because when all the tiles are up this may <br />look like a purple anion. Mr. Pepperny explained that there was also a <br />discrepancy in the canopies. Their standard canopies are structures which come <br />out from the building and are supported by two posts. T1r. Pozek ha.d submitted a <br />plan with a mini-canopy which is a cantilever type structure with no ground <br />supports. This type canopy which extended out only three feet is no longer <br />manufactured since it did not provide protection to the customers. They now have <br />a canopy -?ahich overhangs the sides of the building by 5 foot with a small canopy <br />overhanging the front of the building to give some continuity to the canopies. He <br />presented a rendering of a building with the 5 foot canopies and an overlay of <br />the site plan showing the outline of the overhang which will encroach into the 50 <br />foot setback that was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, so with this canopy <br />there wi11 be an approximate 48 foot setback; on the east side there will be a 70 <br />foot setback instead of the conforming 75 foot setback. The three foot would have <br />encroached somewhat also because the building location was adjusted with the site <br />plan approval. He believed that their engineer did not consider this to be an <br />encroachment since it is an overhang, the footprint of the building conforms to <br />the previously approved setbacks. These encroachments must be addressed by the <br />Board of Zoning Appeals, but Mr. Conway referred the changes to Planning <br />Commission first since the proposal differs from what was approved. Mr. Conway <br />stated that he does consider a canopy Nahen figuring lot coverage, but there would <br />be no visual obstruction. It was clarified that the lights in the overhang are <br />down lights and wash the face of the building. The white neon was allowed only in <br />the recessed band, none of the' other neon was allowed. The members had no <br />objection and Mr. Conway advised that he merely intended to present this to the <br />B.Z.A. by letter and they can diseuss it at the next meeting. Mr. Pepperny stated <br />that they are going to go forward with the mini-canopy at this time; however, <br />Rally's would prefer the full canopies. He was advised that if he changed the <br />proposal, the issue would have to go through the entire approval process again. <br />rir. Orlowski advised that when the full canopies were discussed at the first <br />meeting, Mr. Tallon had not been in favor of them but before he voiced his <br />opinion the members were advised that the full canopies would be elimi.nated and <br />the mini-canopies would be used. Mr. Pepperny presented photographs of a building <br />with the full canopies which extend out about 12 feet on each side and are <br />supported by posts on concrete islands. Mr. Orlowski stated that he believed that <br />the mini-canopies were more palatable. Mr. Pepperny maintained that the smaller <br />canopies do not protect the customers as we11 as the larger ones. He wondered <br />what the Commission's reaction would be if they returned with a request for a <br />8