Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />a <br />., .? <br />Orlowski suggested that, considering the surrounding bu.ildings, there be something other than <br />common block on the side walls, at least colored split face block. Mr. Bailey responded that that <br />they would consider the colored split face. Mr. Orlowski stated that the Architectural Review <br />Board would want defwite samples of materiaLs and color samples of all materials to be used. He <br />further suggested that the mansard should be returned along the sides to the back of the building <br />in order to conceal the HVAC units. He would also like the height of the sign board over the <br />Sleep World u.nit reduced to the height of the other sign board so it was in line with the mansard <br />roo£ He is not sure if the handicapped spaces are in the best location, but if they were in the <br />center of the lot where they would be more accessible to all the stores, there might not be enough <br />room for the required parking. He suggested that they add more landscaping along the sides and <br />rear, instead of just lawn. He further suggested that, instead of using the existing pole sign which <br />would have to be removed in 3 years, they consider installing a ground or pylon sign that would <br />conform to the code. Mr. Bailey stated that they clid plan to enclose the trash receptacle, but the <br />material was not noted on the plan. Mr. Orlowski advised that this should be presented to the <br />A.R.B. and that it should be high enough to conceal the dwnpster. Mr. Miller agreed with all the <br />points noted, and wanted both sign boards lowered to be in line with the roof. Mr. Orlowski <br />clarified that he would prefer to have the mansard run back the full length of the sides of the <br />building, he does not believe that it would be necessary to put it in the back. Mr. Tallon <br />questioned the exterior wall mounted lights shown on the east and north elevations which <br />appeared to be exposed on the bottom and suggested that they use wall washers on the north <br />elevation which would direct the light down. He also stated that because of the 9 foot drop in the <br />property, ;the roof top units would be exposed to the shopping center in the rear, and suggested <br />that some kind of screening, other than the mansard which might be too high, be put in back to <br />screen the units. Mr. Bailey clarified that the green squares on the side of the build.ing will not be <br />included and they will use the split face block on the sides. He further advised that no parking lot <br />lights are planned since they thought the wall lights would be sufficient. Mr. Tallon pointed out <br />the wall washer lights would shine down, not out. The only lights shown on the front of the <br />buildiug are recessed down lights under the canopy which will light up the sidewalk in front of <br />the building. Mr. Tallon suggested that 10 foot high poles with round globes or luminaires with <br />an incandescent type bulb for security lighting be used in the rear. Mr. Manning thought that <br />globes would shine out. Mr. Tallon clarified that the inca.ndescent 100 watt globes are a soft <br />light and would not glare the way a metal halide light would. Mr. Orlowski stated that what type <br />light they used was up to them as long as the light did not shine off the property, but there must <br />be enough light for security. Assistant City Engineer McDermott asked if the developer could <br />present a site plan showing the distance between the centerline of Coe Avenue across Lorain <br />Road to 'the driveway on the property because of the proximity of Coe to that drive. Mr. <br />Orlowski, thought they should present a plan showing, not just Coe, but the location of the <br />buildings and driveways on either side as well. This way Engineering could check out the <br />location of this drive with others in the vicinity. Mr. McDermott advised that they are discussing <br />the retention with the developer, and since this is a difficult lot to develop because of the grade <br />change they will be following it closely. Mr. Orlowski advised that under Section 1161.10, the <br />motion would have to address the variance for not having two, 2 lane driveways and if <br />Engineering agreed, he would have no problem with recommending that it be approved. Mr. <br />Conway `advised that, under the new code, Planning Commission could approve this with out <br />approval;by the Board of Zoning Appeals. He clarified for Mr. Miller that since there were only <br />35 parking spaces, this building would not accommodate a high volume business which would <br />2