Laserfiche WebLink
<br />consistent and uniform on the left and right side. Also mentioned was changing windows <br />from a double hung residential design to a more commercial look with stone header and sill. <br />Wrapping the glass uniformly all around the building would allow the public to view the cars <br />inside the building. The brick pilasters would establish the high element and allow the big arch <br />to be the main focus. Mr. Crook asked about the square windows on the east side. He asked if <br />the height could match everything else. <br />Mr. Ulewicz asked the applicant if they were trying to incorporate any of the historical look in <br />the building. The applicant said no. Being that this is first time that Mr. Ulewicz saw the <br />drawing, Ms. Wenger said this has already been discussed. <br />Ms. Wenger asked the applicant if they could relate the design to the site plan as it is hard to <br />translate the two dimensional drawing to the proposed building. Mr. Rymarczyk asked what <br />material will be between the upper and lower window. The applicant is undecided if it will be <br />brick or metal. Ms. Wenger said brick would add a little softer look to the glass, rather than <br />metal. Breaking up the glass with masonry where the two building suggested, rather than <br />having one continuous pane of glass, which would lend itself to a more contemporary look. <br />Mr. Crook suggested that the Board focus on what is to be changed and that the applicant <br />should come back with a final version. The applicant stated their frustration and feel they are <br />being delayed with coming back again. They wished to be sent to the next board. Ms. Wenger <br />felt a lot has been accomplished and would like to come out of this Board with a strong <br />recommendation. She fiuther stated the Planning Commission would be much tougher and <br />would do no service to the applicant, and also said they may be referred back to Architectural <br />Review Board and the Landmarks Commission. The applicant said they would make all <br />changes that are asked for and continue onto Planning Commission. However, Mrs. Nader <br />stated there is no way to know that the changes will be made. Ms. Wenger said being that this <br />is a critical corner; we are trying to help the applicant and be constructive. <br />The applicant asked Ms. Wenger if they could return to both boards in January. Ms. Wenger <br />said they could go to both Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission in January. <br />Mr. Rymarczyk informed the applicant that additional drawings are necessary in order to go to <br />Planning Commission. <br />Mr. Halleen aslced how many meetings would they need to attend. He feels like they are <br />getting shuffled around. They feel they made changes that were asked and now there are <br />different changes being asked for. Ms. Wenger informed the applicant that the workshops are <br />meant to speed up the process; it was not the intention to delay the project. <br />Mr. Crook said we are going in the right direction to make this a presentable building. He said <br />that they still need to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and coming back to the Architectural <br />Review Board to view the final version in January would be a two week delay. The applicant <br />asked if it could be voted on with recommendations. Mrs. Nader said that is difficult with the <br />substantial changes.