2013_06_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 9 same time restricting corrugated metal applications. Member Cunningham questioned 399 what she was missing to make aluminum siding undesirable. 400 Member Daire questioned if staff responsible for reviewing building plans or elevations for 401 compliance might agree with an architect that they proposed application may be 402 acceptable; and questioned if there was a variance process in place allowing their 403 proposal to move forward even though not specifically addressed here. 404 Mr. Paschke stated that, from his perspective, this focus was not being too narrow, and 405 questioned if it was the community’s preference to have metal sided commercial or office 406 buildings; and clarified that he was only envisioning types of metal panels found of an 407 industrial nature and frequently used for distribution or warehouse facilities. Mr. Paschke 408 confirmed that a variance process was in place, as previously noted for appeal of 409 administrative decisions to the City Council. Mr. Paschke clarified that he was only aware 410 of a few situations where metal siding or other siding materials had been used for pre- 411 existing buildings all located in the Industrial Districts; and opined that he thought staff 412 was already being consistent, but preferred to have the requested specificity for future 413 application and enforcement. Mr. Paschke also recognized that this language allowed for 414 a review of materials and technologies not currently available but available in the future, 415 and allowed staff to make determinations in those circumstances. 416 Member Boguszewski referenced the last line of Section 5.3 of the staff report, providing 417 consideration of new materials by staff without requiring a formal variance process, 418 opining that it was a significant protection for all parties. 419 Mr. Paschke concurred, using the recent FedEx building of County Road B-2 and Transit 420 Avenue as a classic example of that last sentence to support their metal panels with 421 stucco finished, of a higher quality than their original proposal for corrugated metal. While 422 this raised the construction cost for them, Mr. Paschke spoke in support of the material 423 and design achieved to enhance overall aesthetics in the community. 424 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Paschke clarified that this would apply to all 425 Commercial, Mixed Use, Employment (Industrial and Office Park), Institutional, and Park 426 Districts city-wide. For those businesses in Neighborhood or Community Business 427 designated districts, similar to the funeral home application heard earlier tonight, Mr. 428 Paschke clarified for Member Cunningham that they would not be allowed to use 429 aluminum siding either. 430 To address Member Cunningham’s concerns in why aluminum siding was not allowed, 431 Mr. Paschke reviewed the difference in typical residential applications versus that in 432 commercial or industrial applications and their differences in design. Mr. Paschke noted 433 that most communities looked at those commercial areas as requiring a higher level of 434 design and materials that would exclude residentially designed exterior materials. 435 Regarding a commercial business desiring to blend in with a neighborhood through use 436 of residential type materials, Mr. Paschke staff would still be able to review each case, 437 and depending on the actual location, a co-mingling of materials may be appropriate and 438 could be approved; and opined that this recommended revision would not necessarily 439 preclude that from happening. 440 Member Boguszewski provided an example if an existing funeral home was demolished 441 by an Act of God, and their preference was to rebuilt looking like a large home to provide 442 comfort to families; and that they wanted to use aluminum siding, shingles, etc.; and 443 suggested that this was Member Cunningham’s concern that this clause may preclude 444 that happening. However, Member Boguszewski noted that the owners could bring their 445 design to the Community Development Department explaining their rationale in preferring 446 a residential look, and whether there was a process for them to accomplish that desired 447 look. 448 Mr. Paschke opined that this clause didn’t necessarily preclude that happening and 449 actually could allow for a broader or more flexible interpretation. Mr. Paschke questioned 450