Laserfiche WebLink
Council Minutes of 6/21/94 <br />controversy with regard to the authority of the BZD Commhtee. She quoted from the <br />Planning Commission mutes of May 9, 1994 where Chairperson Brian Orris said, "This <br />proposal will go the BZD Committee of Council and then to Council. Anythi~ that the <br />Commis~on has said or done can be undone by Council." She quoted Mr. Thomas who <br />said he "believed that the architecture of the builtl:g couhl be improved to inchrde ire <br />brick building to the mhial recd dation of the ARB." Also, Mr. Thomas dicl not <br />agreed with the second recammenda~icm. Far these reasons, he voted no on the proposal. <br />Two of the three members of the BZD Cattee moved to move with the <br />recommendations of the City F.ng~eer, ARB, Playing C and the BZD <br />Commttee. Mrs. Sarffiger moved to accept the recommendations of the <br />Commission for Wa~Mart with one access on Braokpark Road, the ' g to be 6 <br />feet above floor level along Brookpark Road aad going south al~g the Westbury <br />property line, the elevation to be changed to continue the brick veneer on the ln~ilding to <br />10 feet above grade, the tat splh pin to be completed and approved by the Fagmeering <br />Department, an easement to be approved by the Engineering Dep and with all the <br />other recommendations of the Planning Carmnission, ARB and BZD Committee; second <br />by Mr. McKay. <br />Mr. Nashar, member of the BZD Committee, gave a minority report on the comtniftee <br />meeting: 1) Although he is in agreement with 95% ofthe recommendations fior Wal Mart, <br />he does not agree that the brick veneer on the building should be increased from 8 feet to <br />10 feet. Mr. Nashar moved that Council allow Mr. Newberry to show the architect's <br />plans and to discuss the 8 foot brick band. After some discusaicm as to the <br />appropriateness of allowing another motion when one was akeady under c anon, it <br />was decided to allow the second motion. It was determined that Mr. Muaial seconded Mr. <br />Nashar's motion. Roll call on the motion to allow Mr. Newberry to present the archhect's <br />plans and to discuss the 8 foot brick band: Nasl-ar, yes; Musial, yes; Sarhtger, no; McKay, <br />no; Lmd, yes; Limpert, yes; Bahas, yes. 'The motion passed with five five votes and <br />two negative votes. Mr. Newberry placed a rendering of the " $ design before <br />Council and proceeded to expla~ the architect's plan. At grade level, there is a section of <br />Wainscot wood, asplit-faced integrally colored masonry unit, which reaches 3 foot 6 <br />inches in height. The reason for using integrally colored masonry units at this point is to <br />avoid damage by shopping carts or other objects that may hit the building at walk~~ level <br />height. The color of this area is dusty rose. From this point up to 8 feet with be a band of <br />brick-like units in a darker red color. These units will be 6 to 8 inches deep and go all the <br />way through the wall to become part of the support structure rather than just the facade. <br />The color of this area reflects the colors in the Colebrook Condomi~um build~gs and <br />reflects some of the materials in the Clareahire Condominium build~gs. Above this area at <br />the 8 foot level are two accent bands made of smooth-faced, pasted masonry units. The <br />units form the bands at the 8 to 10 foot and 10 to 12 foot height. Above this area are <br />externally coated split-faced units from 12 to 26 feet. At the 26 foot level, there is another <br />accent band of integrally cohrred units to match what is at ground level. Above this band <br />is the coping. The issue under discussion is whether the red-colored brick-like band <br />should be increased from 8 f~ to 10 feet. Mr. Newberry said that, a$er discuss~g this <br />matter with the architects and Mr. Sohn of the ARB, it was decided that the 8 foot level <br />6 <br />Wl~. '. NW.:KA9dMkr~RYM1Vr'k~~Ah .. ..:.. ..~. ..... ..... r.... <br />