03/18/1998 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? explained the build.ing expansion looks different than the existing build.ing because the function is d.ifferent. He presented a list of materials which included: Utility Brick: Michigan Brick/ US Brick, Tiena (match existing one story area), pull darker color from range in the Tierra brick; 8" X 8" brick units: - Glen-Gery `stylo' series, color - W 181 Dolomite Gray; Glazing: Perma-Pane insulating glass, clear, low e vision glass - Spandrel glass to be custom gray; Aluminum Frame: Kawneer, color - Black #398F019; and E.I.F.S.: Bonsal or equal color and finish to match existing. Mr. Libassi explained where the building breaks back and returns to create a shadow effect. There is a strip of glass block along the west side of the building which will serve the purpose of allowing light to come into the locker room and operating rooms. All the HVAC equipment will be on tlie highest roof of the b.uilding however there may be a couple vents on top of the lower roof which will be screened. Mr. Libassi explained the vertical panel, on the lower root will be a`foam" panel brown in color. The screening for tlie mechanicaL units on the higher roof will match this material although the alignment will be horizontaL He could not provide a sample of the color but confirmed it would blend well with the brick color. Mr. Priest, explained the site plan and noted underground retention will be in place that meets the engineering departments requirements. Some of Mr. Priest's presentation was not audible on the tape. It was requested at plauning that the dumpster enclosure be constructed of brick to match the building, however, Mr. Priest would like to maintain the board on board fence enclosure to match the fence along the property line. Mr. Priest pointed out that the existing fence will be moved closer to the northern property line of the recently acquired parcel and advised tliere is a residential driveway on the north side of the fence and the fence will be far enough offthe properiy line to make room for some landscaping on the resident's side of the fence which the resident will be responsible for maintaining. A variety of plantings were shown on the landscape plan including: Red Maple "Red Sunset"; Flowering Dogwood; Sumuiit Ash; Centurion Crab; Austrian Pine; White Pine; Dwarf Burning Bush; H'ick's Yew; Dwarf Fountain Grass; and Switch Grass. Many of the trees were positioned so as to buffer the residential neighborhood. Light poles will be positioned so that there is zero `foot candles at the properiy line. Mr. Priest advised the lighting is purely for security, as this facility will not be opened 'mto the late evening hours. He distnbuted a description of the lighting. Mr. Mpp a resident across the street had concerns about the site line. Mr. Priest explained the property would be buffered with pine trees and other plant materiaLs. Mr. H'ipp questioned the setback. Mr. Priest confirmed the setback from Columbia Road is twenty feet from the right-of-way line. Building Commissioner Conway explained the right-of- way is generally one foot inside the sidewalk. Mr. I?'ipp was concerned about the driveway access location as he believed the curb cut was directly across the street from his property. Mrs. Collier questioned if the conditional use permit has been approved. Mr. Conway advised that council will have the final vote on the proposaL Mr. H'ipp requested clarification on the location of the driveway. Mr. Priest advised the existing driveway will be relocated and was open for suggestions on the relocation of the driveway. Mr. Yager suggested possibly reducing the size of the Columbia Road drive. in order to lessen the impact on the residential neighborhood, but confirmed this would be subject to review by the traffic engineer. The clerk noted the fire department recommended a thirty foot access drive on Columbia Road. Mr. Collier stated he did not.want to look out into a parking lot and recommended that the developer purchase commercial land for the expansion. Mr. Conway noted azchitectural review board cannot rule on the conditional use as it is beyond their authority, he confirmed the use ,is something that should be addressed at planning commission or city council. The Collier's maintained that they do not want