Laserfiche WebLink
Jeff Lipton feels the site plan is good. He has no offense towards the company or what it can <br />offer the community, but he still doesn’t like the metal. He feels it is going in the wrong direction <br />for CTC and that he will have to vote against it based solely on they element. He appreciates <br />what Variseal is trying to do, but he does not support the metal. <br /> <br />Sarah Klahn agrees with Mr. Lipton. She likes the spine and the idea of connecting the two <br />buildings. She feels that Bill Boulet summed it up. She would be willing to support breaking up <br />the expanse, should they see the project again. She doesn’t like the corrugated material, but likes <br />standing seam. At this point she is opposed. <br /> <br />Russ Van Nostrand agrees with what has been said so far. He agrees with Mr. Boulet that a gable <br />roof rather than a shed roof would be more appealing, and there is too much metal on the west <br />elevation. <br /> <br />Betty Solek likes the architectural treatments, the spine concept and she even likes the metal. She <br />feels that the west elevation is a problem area, but she likes the south elevation, and wonders if an <br />element like that could break up the mass of the west elevation. She is concerned with the <br />vividness of the blue. She likes the way they have responded to their other comments, but the <br />west elevation is still a problem. <br /> <br />Chris Pritchard agrees with the other Commissioners. He feels 21% is not an architectural accent <br />treatment but a building material. He blames the owners of CTC for the lack of design standards. <br /> He feels that if they approve this they are opening the door and setting a standard that they would <br />regret. <br /> <br />Rob McAllister has a different perspective. He is not concerned with the massing of the metal on <br />the west elevation, because the only people who will see it are the people who build behind it. He <br />is concerned, instead, with the large white wall on the east elevation, since it would be visible <br />from Dogwood for years to come. <br /> <br />Jeff Lipton wanted to address the Applicant’s question as to why approval of this project is taking <br />so long. He feels the Applicant is trying to do something very different, and it should be expected <br />that new ideas take a while to digest. Discussion ensued regarding the option to <br />continue. If the Commission votes this project down, the Applicant can still go on to City <br />Council and appeal. The Applicant wants the vote and no continuance. Motion by Jeff Lipton to <br /> <br />approve the Resolution. Seconded. <br /> <br />Roll Call Vote: <br /> Robert McAllister, Yes; Russ Van Nostrand, No; Sarah Klahn, No; Chris <br />Pritchard, No; Bill Boulet, No; Betty Solek, Yes; Jeff Lipton, No. <br /> <br />Motion fails 5:2 <br /> <br />E. Resolution No. 4, Series 1999, Lots 4, 5 & 6, Block 5, CTC, final PUD <br />Development Plan for a light industrial building. <br /> <br /> <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />