11/15/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ups, but you would see rooftop units. If that is acceptable to the city then he will take that back to his company and work it out. Mr. Ports commented that they could screen the rooftop units somehow, but that would only achieve a bigger piece of stuff on that roof. Mr. Elbin questioned if Mr. Yager has done anything similar that they could look at to get an idea of what he is looking for. Mr. Yager replied he is not the architect. The board could either accept this as is or they reject and have Mr. Ports go back to the drawing board. He then questioned why don't you have the President of Developers Diversified call him because he - is not adverse to that conversation with whoever he or she is. Mr. Rymarczyk commented that it could be referred to the Planning Commission without a favorable recommendation. Mr. Zergott questioned if Mr. Yager wouldn't sketch a few ideas as to what they could do to this building. Mr. Yager responded that he would do it. Mr. Ports gave Mr. Yager a site plan to draw on and he began sketching. Mr. Liggett commented that what they are proposing is relatively practical, it's not what the board would like to see on that site, but if that building with what they have done by lifting up the fagade, creating something a little bit more defined on every one of the spaces, if they put some of that detail back into it'would it really be doing the building a disservice. He doesn't mind the cornice going back on. The long spans of the same plain fagade is really what bothers the board. By creating something that jumps down and then back up you start creating a rhythm with what's happening instead of just the long spans of just the straight sign bearing. Mr. Elbin indicated that's fine but again the rooftop units will be exposed. Mr. Yager indicated that they asked him to do a little sketch and here is his little sketch. Mr. Ports questioned if Mr. Yager could walk them through his sketch. Mr. Yager indicated yes. Starting with the piers or pilasters; when you look at the proportion of the light, the column capitol, the slit and the masonry issue in the first proposal there is a proportional issue here stronger than the second proposal which is not strong enough to be used as a detail to break up the fabric. The fabric itself will have more of a visual impact than the column itself will. He brought the pier up above the fabric to make it even stronger to help define the fabric. The glass he left as is because ultimately what you want to do with the glass is showcase the product that is happening down in between. You want to give yourself enough flexibility that if you do move the tenant-demising partrician, the tenant sign can slide in and out. There needs to be a cap at the top of the building that helps draw some detail to take the proportion of the bold color of the fabric, the bold color of the base of the brick, and the soft color of the fagade and end it with a detail that helps define the top. He also broke up the fagade with some slits in between so that it would help draw your eye and move your eye around the building a little bit. Mr. Ports questioned what the slits were. Mr. Yager responded that they could be openings that might wrap around. What he would do is build a model and say here's what makes sense and here's what doesn't make sense. Then at the corner he would want to do something that is a little different on the column that helps extenuate the corner and it might have physical dimension out. It is not uncommon in retail design that at the corner you do something that is a little out of the ordinary to help define the building itself and give the building as a whole character. Mr. Elbin commented that the problem he sees is breaking up the sign ban. In a multi-tenant building they try to build in the flexibility of where the demising walls are going to be, because they don't know where they will be located in 5 or 10 years. Mr. Yager cominented that he thinks the board should proceed on because Developers Diversified and Mr. Ports are comfortable with their design. It sounds like they might make some adjustments to the column and to the top where there is little detail. Is that acceptable to the board is the question. Instead of continuing on in the conversation he thinks the board should vote and recommend to the Planning Commission their thoughts. Mr. Zergott questioned what material they would use for the retaining wall. Mr. Elbin indicated it would be concrete. Mr. Zergott commented that he would like to make a couple of changes to the plant material choices on the plans dated 11-8-00 which need heartier plants along Lorain Rd. because of the salt damage that would occur. 3