Planning Commission Minutes 2017 08 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 10, 2017 Page 11 of 19 is two story glass or large canopy. We have continuation of the store front even though this is a van facility. There are no offices or office operation. We convinced FedEx that this was a positive thing for them, it brought more natural light into the building, and it created a better image driving westbound on SH42 looking at the corner. It is not a public space for customers. Moline asks about the berm. Is it your perspective that the berm and its landscaping will hide the entire northern elevation from vehicular views from SH42? Vasbinder says that is an overstatement. It will soften but will not hide the building. At the lower elevation of the building where the doors are, it will minimize the view from SH42 into the door area. Pritchard says in regard to the landscape, what is the timeline you think it will take to soften the building, specifically on the north and east sides. Vasbinder says it normally takes about three years for the landscaping to start "taking". It takes about eight years before maturity. We plant oversize landscaping with larger pine trees versus smaller trees and larger caliper deciduous trees. We want to have a good impact and image for our buildings from all four quadrants. Pritchard asks about the concrete liner. How does that present itself from a distance? You can see on the material board that it has a ridged look and the drawings look ridged. Vasbinder says the liner creates the ridges. The concrete will look like the metal panels. Drawinq entered into record: Rice makes motion to enter Berridge S-Deck drawing of metal walls into the record, seconded by Brauneis. Motion passed by voice vote. Vasbinder says the panel is laid on the floor and concrete is poured on it. The panel is then lifted up. The ridges are now integral and a part of the panel. It gives a dramatic difference to a flat panel. O'Connell asks for a picture of the fence proposed. Vasbinder says there is a detail in the drawings. It is found on sheet 8, detail 12, in the PUD package. It is a metal fence that is ornamental with spaced columns. It will be a dark color. Commission questions of Staff. - Moline says given the presentation that the applicant just made, how will you view the west elevation? Does it meet the intent of architectural standards for the building? Zuccaro says if you look at the west elevation in isolation, we agree that it meets the intent of the rezoning ordinance. Public Comment: None. Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: Zuccaro says as part of our summary, I want to talk about the architecture. We thank Mr. Vasbinder for working with Staff on all projects. It is great to hear about all the projects he has done, all the PUDs he's processed, and that he's had recommendations of approval on them all. This proposal is unique and we think we are close on this one outstanding issue and condition. It comes down to the ordinance which is very unique. We have never had to evaluate a project off of this and this is new territory. This is an all metal building. This is not allowed in the CTC. Metal is allowed as an accent, but metal wall buildings are not. As a point of comparison, certainly most buildings in the CTC already have higher grade material. We understand that this user has lots of constraints and we are trying to work within our understanding of it and what CC asked as a condition in this ordinance. I want to point the PC to the packet where Staff gave examples of other projects in the CTC. Page 2 of the PDF, pages 6, 7, and 8 in the Staff memo. We tried to find some ways to objectively analyze this. Figure 5 shows horizontal articulation of the building in the public zone. The applicant probably can't do that because of the bays.