10/16/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

v because of the amount of parking spaces available. He elaborated, if the new teuant is a bank, the second driveway will be needed. Mr. Yager questioned if it was a bit premafure to bring this issue before architectural review board prior to knowing who will be the tenant. It was clarified the site plan will be predicated on who will be the tenant. Mr. Mongello noted planning commission and board of. zoning appeals had not eliiniuated the second curb cut, aud questioned why this board would consider that option. Mr. Yager acknowledged that these are his personal opinions of the site, and the board has not yet recommended the elimination of the second curb cut. Ms. Kopko stated originally parking was proposed in the front, since then planniug commission recommended switching to a circular drive. She explained a circular drive would be more attractive to a perspective tenants and gave the building a look that there is parking in the rear. Mr. Gallagher had no problem with the circular drive as it allowed a larger landscape area. Mr. Yager argued, if a bank, should be the new tenant, the driveway would be redundant. Mr. Gallagher stated a drive through window could then be installed on the side. Mr. Yager stated than the other drive would be redu.ndant. He suggested that this come back when there is a definite tenant, so that the site plan can then be based'on the teriant. Ms. Kopko argued if the circular drive is not necessary, it would be cheaper to landscape one side. Mr. Yager stated it would be even cheaper to leave it as a stone drive. Mr. Mongello explained the building to the west was built on the property line, as code permitted at one time. He noted the wall is not designed as a retaining wall, therefore, if a driveway is installed something wouid have to be done to correct the problem. Mr. Yager wondered what the city's requirement is for quantity of parking and how many spaces are proposed for this site. Mr. Conway believed the proposal exceeded city requirements for parking. Mr. Yager believed the attempt is to asphalt every inch possible. Mr.1Vlongello responded there are times the code does not work. He elaborated currently his office building lacks ample parking' space, although there is 20 percent more parking than requ.ired by code. In response to Mr. Yagers question it was clarified there is about 8,000 feet total and 44 parking spaces proposed. Mr. Gallagher indicated if it is a medical tenant, they will most likely be there a long time. He believed, because the handicapped_would be using the facility, the turn around drive would be advantageous. The members requested clarification on the type of tenant. Mr. Mongello explained they have already rejected thirty-two tenants because they are attempting to improve the area. He reiterated the tenant is currently iwkuown. Mr. Liggett also preferred the removal of one of the drives. He suggested widening off one end of the drive and using that area as a drop off Mr. Gallagher noted if this is a handicapped location this could be a problem, as often there is more than one bus. Mrs. Kopko described the architecture of the building. The front of the addition will be a brick which will match the existing fire station building. Ms. Kopko indicated there will be areas of dryvit. The shingle will be a Sealdon 20 weathered wood and the vinyl siding will be hickory by Norandex. Mr. Yager requested clarification on where the glass will be, as his plan differed from the one presented. Mr. Mongello explained that during the negotiations the medical people requested some changes. Mr. Yager wondered what they should approve, as there is not any guarantee exactly what materials will be used. Mr. Mongello agreed to come back when the tenant is known, as they will have to come back in the future for the sign. Mr. Yager explained, if there is a medical tenant they may choose to cover the canopy. Mr. Mongello stated a covered canopy will not be feasible due to setback requirements. Iii response to Mr. Liggetts question, Mr. Mongello explained the dryvit is illustrated on the right side elevation. Mr. Liggett believed there was too much dryvit and suggested creating more definition. Mr. Yager wondered how the front and side elevations would come together. Mr. Mongello explained the front comes out to the edge of the existing canopy, which is setback eight feet. Mr. Liggett requested clarification on the location of the brick. There will be brick around the windows, the corner will be a four inch brick and then the vinyl will continue from that point. Mr. Mongello clarified the brick will be on the top of the rear wall of the fire station. Mr. Liggett pointed out the features are incomplete and suggested somehow bringing the brick to a closure. The members indicated exactly what their recommendation is for the layout of the brick. Mr. Yager