07/25/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the one story. I also heard that at the human level or lower level were people are looking at the structures they will be looking at granite, looking at masonry, and the pavers that are going to be there. Those materials and you are looking at a landscaping plan, we want to provide a better landscaping plan because it fits it make since. The reasons are stated objectively, there are goals to be made and frankly, it behooves us to do that. Nevertheless, when we shift gears and talk about the E.F.I.S. material on the wall I find it a little distressing. I just feel like we can't get away from that anci I just do not see why. The owner say this is a material they have used over the years. This is something we work with, this is something we chose as part of our image. It is their investment, their product line and all other objective measures say this will look good, and function well. That is when I ask why, why not do that. What I am hearing is that someone says that the standards have to be masonry. I think you are always going to have some people that will say, colonial style verses contemporary style. Those are matters of taste. There are certain environments where if you are blending, I mean we are not talking about something that is all garish or that the materials are not compatible. On the contrary they are, so we are trying to hone in on or narrow down any of the friction points and the disparity. The only dissonance that I hear in this is just the masonry or not. We are simply saying, people that I represent are telling me, we work with this and this is what we want to use and we are asking for that recognition. It strikes me that what I am hearing tonight is that it is a material that works but make sure it goes in right, lets do it right. Mr. Tallon: Does the board have any other questions? Mr. Spalding: I have a question regarding in front of the entrance, the main entrance. I think that the last time these gentlemen were here; we talked about eliminating the parkirig in front of the store. So that the people would not have to cross, the mains access roadway because that would present a hazard. I see it on our site plan again right in the front. We suggested at that time to you that that be eliminated because of the potential hazards to patrons coming into the store because of that roadway. Mr. Tallon: We landbanked that. Mr. Loesch: what we were trying to maintain is the existing ring road. There will be traffic coming in and out of here, which will be free flowing. The parking on this side will be reserved for employees so there wont be a mammoth amount of foot traffic right across the entranceway. There will be crosswalks. Mr. Tallon: That was not our understanding at the last Planning Commission meeting, at the end of the last meeting you were going to use those spaces as landbanked spaces, to the road along side the Dillard's. The first 6/7, 7/6 and 7/7 the first three sets of parking spaces were going to be landbanked. Mr. Deichmann: Right. Mr. Tallon: You agreed to that, you thought it would be a good idea. Mr. Barker: Could you explain that again to me as I am drawing a complete blank on that whole discussion. Mr. Tallon: This row, this row and this row is going to be landbanked so there was no direct crosswalk here, so the people would not be crossing helter-skelter here. Mr. Barker: We will work it out. Mr. Rinker: We are talking about the first three spots. Mr. Tallon: Those were to be landbanked spots. Mr. Barker: I apologize. I was confused we had talk about some other landbanked concepts. Mr. Tallon: That is because the landbank was over there and then you said you would move it to here to el'uninate the problem of having the people crossing. Mrs. O'Rourke: They are not going to change the traffic rules are they, on coming traffic does not stop. Mr. Barker: That is correct when he mentioned free flowing that is what he was referring to. Mr. Deichmann: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make three recommendations for your consideration. First! With respect to storm water retention, since existing site is hard surface parking lot and are going to hard surface again as far as engineering, we are no,t asking for any additional storm water retention to be constructed. However the existing storm water retention 14