My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-22-95 Council Special Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
08-22-95 Council Special Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 4:36:03 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:57:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 22, 1995 <br />this number of overhead doors. Some of these doors can <br />be closed off, and a store-front type of entrance <br />added. However, the schematic design of the building <br />cannot begin until its use is defined. <br />Finsness reported that an identification sign would be <br />required at the Little Canada frontage. Lighting would <br />be another consideration. The roof needs to be <br />evaluated to determine its usefulness for the next 20 <br />to 30 years. The energy efficiency of the building <br />also needs to be considered. <br />Fahey asked about the possibility of changing the roof <br />to a gable design rather than the flat roof. <br />Finsness suggested that creating a structure to provide <br />a gable roof may be a problem from a budget standpoint. <br />Finsness reported that modern flat roof systems have a <br />life of 20 to 30 years. <br />Scalze suggested a gable roof facade from Little Canada <br />Road. <br />Finsness replied that that was a less expensive option <br />than a full gable roof structure. This option can be <br />evaluated as part of the design process. <br />Finsness reported that accessible restrooms will be <br />required on both levels. The existing lower level <br />bathrooms would remain, with a unisex handicapped- <br />accessible bathroom added to both the upper and lower <br />levels. Finsness reported that he would verify that <br />this is an acceptable option under the UBC. <br />Fahey asked if an elevator or chair lift would have to <br />be added. <br />Finsness replied that if there are accessible bathrooms <br />on both levels, there is no need for an elevator. <br />Finsness also reported that given the uses planned for <br />the building, he would have to verify the number of <br />bathroom fixtures which would be required. <br />Fahey commented that the results of the community <br />survey show there is interest on the part of residents <br />in renting the space out. <br />Finsness pointed out there are lighting/daylighting <br />issues to consider. That is, whether more windows or <br />skylights should be added to the building and what will <br />be done with the existing lamp fixtures. Floor, wall <br />and ceiling finishes are another consideration. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.