My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2000 01 11
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2000 Planning Commission Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2000 01 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:13 AM
Creation date
9/5/2014 2:08:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2000 01 11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Applicant Presentation: <br /> <br />Bob Maddox with CMC Group, representing Airborne Express. Mr. Maddox stated that since <br />the last meeting they have made the changes that were of major concern to the Commission. The <br />“racing stripes” across the top have been eliminated. They have made an earth tone wall across <br />the bottom which also slips across the east and west side which will negate the visibility of the <br />roll-up doors. The other issue is the articulated front, which gets relief now that the diamond <br />reveals the and a different color of paint across the top. They have also agreed to put a cap <br />across the top and have agreed to many other conditions that the Staff requested. <br /> <br />Members of the Public: <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br /> <br />Commissioner Lipton asked if this application met the design guidelines at this point. Mr. <br />Johnstone stated yes, it does meet the design guidelines. Mr. Lipton asked about any major <br />variances. Mr. Johnstone stated that the only area that may be up to some discussion is how <br />much structural articulation there is in the building. At this time it is not an issue. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lipton asked the applicant about the window above the entryway door as to <br />whether it serves any particular functional purpose. Mr. Maddox stated that it serves as <br />architectural relief. Lipton would rather see more stone work rather than the window. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thompson would like to see some more articulation. Thompson likes the new <br />project and does not feel very strongly about the entry door window and is generally in favor of <br />this project. <br /> <br />Chairman Boulet is in favor of this proposal while it may not in every respect meet the letter of <br />what is in the Industrial Design Guidelines. He thinks that it does make other accommodations to <br />make up for that in order to be able to achieve the functionality that is also needed in this type of <br />facility. The compromises that are requested in this case are reasonable under the circumstances. <br />Compromises made by the applicant include substantial landscaping and setback of the building to <br />address some aesthetic concerns and in addition to that he feels the architectural changes that <br />were mentioned by the Staff and put into this proposal here definitely have improved this building. <br /> Boulet thinks that the glass is fine. <br /> <br />Commissioner Solek agrees that this building has come a long way. Solek agrees with Lipton that <br />the diamond treatment across the top may be a better solution than the window. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pritchard feels that this is a good use and will fit in nicely. Pritchard is in favor of <br />the overhead window because it makes it look different than the other buildings. <br /> <br /> 5 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.