Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />PLAIVNING COMMISSION <br />MINUTES-FEBRUARY 9, 1993 <br />*7:30 P.M.* <br />I. ROLL CALL: <br />Chairman Gorris called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. <br />Present: L. Orlowski, K. 0'Rourke, A. Skoulis, J. Thomas, and B. Gorris. <br />Mr. Tallon arrived later. <br />.Also Present: Assistant Law Director Dubelko, City Engineer Deichmann, Building <br />Commissioner Conway, and Clerk of Commissions Oring. <br />II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES: <br />In the minutes of the special meeting of January 18, 1993, Chairman Gorris asked <br />if Mr. Thomas had meant. to use the word "opposition" in the motion he made on <br />page 6, ninth line from the bottom. Mr. Thomas stated that ha.d used the word to <br />clarify that the drive should be opposite the.one across the street. Mr. Thomas <br />then questioned page 4, second sentence, where it mentioned that Mr. Newberry <br />stated tha.t they preferred option 3. Mrs. 0'Rourke and Mr. Orlowski thought that <br />this had been said, but it was decided that the clerk should check the tape to <br />verify that. The minutes of January 18th will be deferred until later. <br />A. Skoulis moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 26, 1993 as <br />submitted, seconded by J. Thomas, and unanimously approved. <br />CI. BUILDING DEPARTMIIVT REQUESTS: <br />1) Rally's Restaurant, 27208 Lorain Road. <br />.Proposal to construct drive-thru only food service outlet. <br />Continued from Planning Commission meeting of.October 13, 1992. <br />Variance granted by Board of Zoning Appeals November 5, 1992. <br />Heard by Architectural Review Board December 16, 19920 <br />Heard by Architectural Review Board January 20, 1993. <br />Continued from Planning Conmission meeting of January 26, 1993. <br />Mr. Pozek, architect, presented <br />the more subdued colors and a F <br />colors. The red has been toned <br />(S.W. 1566) and the stark white <br />and the yellow in the sign has 1 <br />and the landscape plan has been <br />they use either plain glass or a <br />is still shown. Square lighting <br />a white neon tube will be on <br />removed, stating that these had <br />that neon and glass block goes i <br />radiate around the building, i <br />canopy with a soft glow which re <br />that it is recessed into the <br />building. Mr. Thomas is concex <br />Board had requested that the two <br />that if they installed a floresc <br />the neon which is only about a h <br />normally the same wattage and ar <br />the Commission looks at these tu <br />a colored rendering of the revised proposal with <br />icture of an existing building with the original <br />down 3 tints to a more subdued and flat color <br />has been toned down 2 tints to gray (S.W. 2137), <br />)een removed. The trees will be a 3 inch caliper <br />approved. NIr. Tallon would have preferred that <br />mirrored effect instead of the glass block which <br />fixtures will be installed under the canopy, and <br />the exterior. Mr. Thomas would like the neon <br />not been approved in the past. Mr. Pozek advised <br />z and out of fashion, this tube does not flash or <br />: is not bright and merely highlights the front <br />Elects off the red background. Mr. Orlowski noted <br />canopy and does not go completely around the <br />ned it might set a precedent. The Architectural <br />red neon bands be eli.minated. Mr. Pozek stated <br />E!nt tube in the channel it would be brighter than <br />slf inch tube. Mr. Tallon stated that the neon is <br />a not usually bright. Mr. Gorris explained that <br />bes as additional signage, but he has no strong