Laserfiche WebLink
NLINUTT;S <br />PUNNING COi\l\T[SSION <br />NOVEMBER IG, ?004 <br />Satmonpour pointed out that the building is two-story in height and was <br />concerned about the view from his east-flcing windows. Rustad estimated <br />that the building would be 11 to l2 feet from the shared property line and <br />noted that the dental off ce building is approximately 40 feet from the <br />propert}~ line. Bob DeBace indicated that Dr. Salmonpom' would be able <br />to see Little Canada Road from those windows. Rustad noted that his <br />building would be higher than the dental office given that the dental office <br />is l '/~ stories in height. <br />Keis stated that he would like to see brick on die building as high as <br />possible, suggesting the entire frst story of the building. ICeis also <br />suggested agable-roof structure over the entrance doors to each office. <br />ICeis suggested that Rustad have revised exterior drawings available for <br />the Council meeting. <br />The City Planner noted that a stucco or LIPS (Exterior Insulation and <br />Finish System) would be preferable to the proposed lap siding. Rustad <br />indicated that he would bring in some pictures of other buildings that have <br />lap siding indicating that he finds the look preferable to ~6IFS. Rustad <br />indicated That ElPS was used on the Tacheny building and he can see <br />waves in the siding. <br />Keis recommended approval of the Architectural Review for proposed <br />ottice condominium building at 206 Little Canada Road proposed by Dave <br />Rustad contingent on compliance with the recommendations ofthe City <br />Planner relative to exterior building materials, enhancement of building <br />entry points, and subject to review and approval of a landscape plan for <br />the site. <br />1\~otion seconded by Knudsen. <br />Motion carried ~ - 0. <br />SIGNAGE Patricl. Niclaeson, A & W, appeared before the Commission relative <br />VARIANCE - to his request for a Vv~iance to exceed the number of wall signs allowed <br />3006 RICI; as well as Architectural Review of the proposed signage for the A & W <br />STREET - building at 3006 Rice Street. <br />A&R' <br />~W~ Keis noted the recommendation of the City Planner as outlined in his <br />report dated November L t, 2004 against the variance given that there is no <br />hardship present that would warrant approval. Keis pointed out that Nb~. <br />Niclaeson is seel:in~ a significant variance. <br />'~"nuc~lsen pointed out that the City is trying to stay away from signage that <br />is painted directly on the building. lIe suggested a reduction in the <br />;- <br />