Laserfiche WebLink
r 9 . <br />enclosure with a board on board gate. It was noted that there is a chain link fence behind the <br />existing bu.ilding with slats in it. Mr. Orlowski would like the gas service screened in some way. <br />The electrical service will come in underground. Mr. Thomas clarified that his intention at the <br />previous meeting was not to make the new building all brick, he mainly wanted to know if they <br />were interested in creating a compatible co-development with the two buildings. He personally <br />does not like a dark red brick building, and he is not uncomfortable with this proposal and <br />believed that the two buildings will be compatible. He did agree that the red should be muted and <br />is also concerned about the paint spalling. Mr. Conway stated that the Architectural Board does <br />specify what materials can be used, but there is nothing to specify how a building is to be re- <br />painted afterwards. Mr. Orlowski would like the exit on Lorain Road to be right turn only, and <br />Mr. Gorris stated that he would like the Safety and Engineering to look into that. In reference to <br />the traffic signal loop detector that is to be installed in that driveway, Mr. Deichmann explained to <br />Mr. Thomas that these were not particularly expensive, and that they had planned to install both <br />the loop and a signal head in the drive because it was within the limits of the intersecrion. He <br />stated that the city had written this into the plans prior to this development being proposed and <br />this had to be included in the prel'vniuary plan. Mr. Orlowski also believed that their signage is <br />redundant, and believed that the words "Meals to Go" and "Rotisserie" are unnecessary. In <br />reference to the lighting, he would also like to see the lights shielded. They will present a light <br />plan at the next meeting. Councilman McICay, speaking from the audience, advised that the people <br />in the audience had been unable to see the presentation. The developers showed the renderings <br />to the audience and explained the proposal. B. Gorris moved to refer the Boston Chicken <br />proposal at 26440 Lorain Road, to the Architectural Review Board and call their attention to the <br />fact that the Commission had specifically asked the developer to try to tie in these two parcels and <br />it would appear that the developers seem to have made a conscientious attempt to do so. There is <br />some concern among the members as to whether the new building should be brick to match the <br />old bu.ilding as opposed to what they are proposing where the old building is being made to <br />match the new building. We would like the Architectural Board's input as to the appropriateness <br />of the colors and the developers attempt to tie these in. The Commission would like the <br />Architectural Review Board to pay particular attention to the developers suggestions for paint for <br />the old building because of the concem of maintenance in the future, spalling, and the ultimate <br />look of the old building. Also the Coinmission has asked the developers to tone down the reds <br />and mute some of the colors so that it will convey their national identity, without being gaudy or <br />unpleasant. The developer understands that the Commission will not permit an illumiuated awning <br />which is considered signage, the awning is more than acceptable providing that the light does not <br />shine through it. We ask that the A.R.B. review the shrubbery around the building and the <br />landscaping. Further, we request that the Engineering Department a.nd the Safety Department to <br />pay particular attention to the west drive and also the other cirives to determine if there should be <br />limited ingress and egress in these drives. Also request that the developers add stripping in the <br />parking lot as needed, as well as directional signs for the cross easements and movement of traffic <br />throughout the entire parking lot. Also in reference to the signage, we would like them to dropthe `2Vleals to Go" and "Rotisserie" from the signage from the awuing to eliminate some of the <br />redundancy on the signage. We would also like a lighting plan presented to the Architectural <br />Board, and some plan for dumpster enclosures on the e}risting building in order to screen from <br />Lorain Road. Also we would like A.RB.'s opinion ofthe existing chain link fence on the rear <br />property line, seconded by L. Orlowski, and unanunously approved. During the motion the <br />2