06/18/1986 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW JUNE 18, 1986 PAGE 3 (rear of b uilding will be 60' from the church); dumpster will be in view of the church. They voiced no objections to the brick faced retaining wa11, but questioned type of fence. It was-.explained,that fence, dumpster and mechanical screening would be stained redwood and would require some maintenance. The representatives of the church questioned if they could request a brick wall in place of the fence. Cost of this might be pro- hibitive. Mrs. Case commented that the building seems to be plain and suggested that the church could put in some landscaping. Mr. Pattison agreed that landscaping would be superior to a fence and suggested that the church request that the developer install some landscaping on their property. He pointed out that landscape screening is usually required by Planning Commission on the parcel being developed, but, in this case, there would be no room at the rear of the property. (At this point Mr. Bender, the architect, made some inaudible comments and walked out of the meeting with no explanation). Mr. Pattison stated that there should be some protection for the retaining wa11, either a handrail or a guardrail, but since the architect left this cannot be discussed. Mr. Zwick stated that he could convey that information to the developer. Board discussed disposition of proposal. D. Pattison moved to disapprove this on the basis that there are questions to be asked and nobody to answer those questions at this time, and that if a representative is available who can address those issues that we would be happy to take up the matter at the next meeting. Further discussion ensued prior to a second and a vote on the motion. Mr. Zwick stated that he represented the developer and questioned what type of rail was required. This board cannot design this proposal. Mr. Pattison then stated for the record that there is a poten- tial problem with an existing adjoining property drainage system which is being altered by this project and the two recommendations are: 1) at the compliance of the adjoining parcel this property has agreed to do some re-grading on their behalf or, 2) extend some catch basins and some under- ground storm drainage over to eliminate that problem, either or both. He also advised the members of John Knox to take up the fence proposal with Planning Commission and suggested they request adequate screening around the dumpster and eliminate the remainder of the fence which could become an eyesore. Motion was then seconded by Mrs. Case, and unanimously ap- proved, Mr. Zwick and the audience were advised that this proposal would gQ on to the next Planning Commission meeting. 3) Biskind Deveiopment Co., property located south of the existing Great Northern Shopping Center and north of Plaza South (Parcel D). Proposal to construct retail store and arcade addition to Plaza South. Mr. Carlisle, Biskind Development Company, presented the signs for Great Northern Corporate Center (Item 2, under Signs) at this point. He explained that according to the Zoning Code sign in the Mixed Use District must follow the restrictions for signage in the General Retail District and this complex does not fall into this catagory. Consequently, they have received a varinace for four ground signs, two of which are oversized. Under the code, they would only be allowed one ground sign, but they could have 900 square feet of building signs, which they are not planning to have. Signs wi11 basically indicate services rendered on the site, most tennants will not have individual identification. The smaller directional signs wi11 give addresses of buildings. This sign package