Laserfiche WebLink
2. The stone at the main entrar?ce support is to remain at its present height and <br />configuration. <br />3. Bike racks are to be added to the site. <br />4. The proposed cypress mulch is to be replaced with premium grade shredded mulch. <br />J. Werner seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. <br />Gordon Food Service Marketplace; 24001 Lorain Road (WRl) 4): <br />GFS representative Rick Morgan and architect Dwight Huslcey reviewed the project background <br />and changes that were made since the applicant's pre-submission conference. Some changes <br />included removing one curb cut and reducing parking to provide more green space and <br />stormwater storage. They felt the addition of greenspace is a positive change to the site. Mr. <br />Malone questioned if a wider green strip could be added to the east side to buffer residents. The <br />applicant showed how the area was needed to accommodate parlcing and the turning movement <br />of truclcs into the delivery area. The Board questioned the grading at the southeast corner of the <br />project area; the applicant would investigate this situation. <br />Significant discussion was had on landscaping. The board felt the arborvitae proposed should be <br />supplemented by deciduous trees on the east property line about every 20 feet. It was discussed <br />that drainage ways had to be clear for water runoff and could not be planted with trees. <br />Additional conifers were proposed at the southwest corner near the detention basin. The boards <br />recommended more diversity in plantings along the building and in the front setback area, to <br />include other types than the proposed junipers. The Board felt that the rear fence should be <br />removed carefully to preserve the trees, and that additional arborvitae should be planted to fill in <br />the gaps. <br />In regards to the site, the applicant proposes to reduce pole heights to 18 feet on a standard base <br />nearest the residents. They may require 20 foot poles along the roadway in order to avoid having <br />darlc spots in the parking field. The applicant will provide shields on fixtures where appropriate <br />to direct light away from residences. <br />Significant discussion was had on the building color and design. The Board objected to the gray <br />tones proposed. The applicant indicated that they could propose the same materials in two tones <br />of brown and showed a photograph of this option. The Board was pleased with this color <br />combination and remarked that the red canopy was less contrasting with brown than with gray. <br />Mr. Crook discussed other ways that the applicant could add dimension to the building, but many <br />were beyond the financial ability of the applicant. Mr. Crook suggested that the metal coping on <br />the building be bronze instead of red. <br />The Board requested the applicant to paint all non-entry doors brown to match the building. Ms. <br />Nader asked if the rooftop condensers would be visible, and the applicant provided a sight line <br />sketch to show they would not. Mr. Ulewicz aslced if planters could be extended around the <br />entryway concrete pillars. Mr. Huskey said he would explore whether this was possible. Mr. <br />Ulewicz also requested a bilce rack near the entry of the store. <br />The Board requested that the monument sign have a base of fluted block to match the building <br />rather than the bronze columns that were originally proposed.