03/15/1982 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MARCH 23, 1982 PAGE 3 the air conditioning unit being partially visable above the high part of the roof and totally visable from the lower portion. Mr. Leonard stated that it might be a few inches above the higher roof but he planned to paint the unit to match the roof and did not think it would be too noticeable. R. Parry moved to recorimend approval of the Spudnuts site plan and building plans with the following recommendations: 1) At the drive along the pick up window the curb be moved approximately 2 feet to the south to insure that any trucks or vanswill not hit the cantilevered roof. 2) That the drive in window be extended approximately 1 foot (to make more accessible to cars). 3) Signage be placed on the site for circulation speci- fically that the western entrance on Lorain be signed as an "entrance" and that the eastern drive be signed as an "exit" and that the exit on L,Thitethorn be signed as "exit only". 4) Parking spaces number 1 and 2 be angled approximately 30 degrees to the north so that cars do not have to back out on sidewalk or onto Lorain Rd. to exit. 5) Have the architect study the required radius for ve- hicles from drive in window to be able to make a 180 degree turn on Whitethorne without crossing the center line. 6) Put an off set of approximately 2 feet in the cedar screen fencing to provide a hidden trash area. 7) Finish the entire rear of building with cedar boards flat against the wa11 and use of stucco board to con- tinue the exterior finish around the entire building. 8) extend the curbingand sidewalk approximately 1' at the front of the building to act as an integral curb and tire stop. 9) recommend that the H.V.A.C. dquipment be completely screened on a11 sides with a solid screening on the east and north to be added, seconded by S. Ebin, and unanimously approved. S. Ebin moved to approve the Spudnuts Signs as submitted with the recotnmendation that the signs be a break resistant material, seconded by R. Parry, and unanimously approved. After a brief discussion regarding the costs of some of the sug- gestions, and the possibility that the proposal might now be abandoned, Mr. Leonard stated that he could reduce the size of the overtia_ng to prevent trucks, motorhomes etc., - f rom hitting the roof. He also asked what other changes, if any, that he could make to reduce costs without having to appear before the Board since this would delay the project. He was advised that this proposal will be returned to the Planning Commissions with the Architectural Board's recom- mendations and it would be their decision whether to approve