My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 03-26-2001
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCP 03-26-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:35 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 2:36:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
123
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 7, 2001 <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />Commissioner Erickson stated he would support eliminating the use of decorative block, since it <br />would probably not be appropriate with a high-rise office building which would probably be a . <br />brick and glass type of structure, <br /> <br />Mr. McClure stated the use of decorative block would be applicable with a single-story office <br />building, He suggested decorative block be limited to single structure buildings and remain <br />within the secondary materials at 30%. <br /> <br />Commissioner Erickson stated he does not support the use of Exterior Insulation and Finish <br />System (EIFS) on a high-rise building, Mr. Dowdy noted that EIFS canoot exceed 30% but <br />more definition could be included, Commissioner Erickson stated he believes there are concerns <br />with EIFS related to durability and longevity, <br /> <br />The Planoing Commission agreed that EIFS would be added to the secondary materials list <br />(Section 4B) and be limited to 10%. <br /> <br />Commissioner Erickson asked what was intended with decorative masonry. Mr. Dowdy stated it <br />would be integral colored split face, not brick, <br /> <br />Chair Baker suggested use of the term "decorative clay masonry," especially given the <br />discussion that the height of the ramps is not yet known, <br /> <br />The Planoing Commission agreed that Section 4F would be revised to state: "Structured parking <br />facilities shall meet the same architectural standards as primary structures." <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Commissioner Erickson questioned Section 7 which addressed roof-top units. Mr. Dowdy <br />explained the rationale for requiring an organized pattern of roof-top units. <br /> <br />Commissioner Erickson noted that the rooftop of a one-story unit would be visible from the <br />freeway. Mr. Shardlow agreed that would be the case, Commissioner Erickson stated the <br />organization would be appreciated in that situation but a parapet would be a more desirable way <br />to do it. Mr. Shardlow suggested the standard be set and addressed when the Final Plan is <br />submitted. He noted that in this case, the standard is clear that the rooftop equipment shall be <br />completely screened from the ground-level view, <br /> <br />The Commission agreed to strike Section 10 and revise Section II to indicate: "A color and <br />materials [mish board, elevations, and architectural renderings shall be submitted for Planoing <br />Commission review and City Council approval at the time of submittal for final plat." <br /> <br />Chair Baker stated there were no questions on the "Accessory Buildings" section. He reviewed <br />the "Parking Requirement" section and asked about the term "decorative wall." <br /> <br />The Planoing Commission agreed to revise Section 3 to indicate: "".such frontage shall be <br />screened with a decorative wall of compatible material with the primary building, railing, <br />hedge"," <br /> <br />The Planoing Commission agreed to revise "Loading Docks" to indicate: "",80% opaque within . <br />two years, and by a screen wall of the same materials and colors as the principal building." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.