My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11/08/2006 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2006
>
11/08/2006 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2014 11:09:20 AM
Creation date
6/23/2014 3:48:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
11/08/2006
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
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
Planning & Zoning Board <br />October 11, 2006 <br />Page 8 <br />infiltration problems such as mold and decay, caused by weather. He said that he <br />previously had not been able to find a contractor that was willing to warranty a window <br />that would be installed as requested. <br />Upon further discussion, Mr. Janes explained that they found a window that day that <br />would work and they are eliminating this request for consideration. <br />Mr. Janes stated that they did find someone that would offer a warranty for this type of <br />installation and that with the outside trim, they would meet the requirements of the <br />guidelines. <br />Mr. Rafferty asked what areas are Hardie - board. Mr. Knoth responded that the entire <br />building is Hardie -board panel, smooth with a texturized paint to give a stucco <br />appearance. <br />Mr. Laden asked if this is more economical than EIFS. Mr. Knoth replied yes, but that <br />the bigger issue is mold. <br />Mr. Nelson wondered if there were any reservations because there was only one option <br />for the newly found window. Mr. Knoth reiterated that this installation is an <br />unconventional way to approach this, but that the contractor would warranty the work. <br />Mr. Nelson asked how the new rendering has improved from the old. Mr. Knoth replied <br />that there is a more pronounced presence to the corner, which now wraps around, and <br />additional color has enhanced the building. <br />Mr. Nelson asked if Mr. Knoth considers removing the balconettes an improvement. Mr. <br />Knoth replied that he is indifferent to the balconettes, and does not consider their removal <br />to be a detriment. <br />Mr. Rafferty commented about the parapet heights and asked if the winged appearance <br />would be improved by raising the lower parapet elements. Mr. Knoth stated that the <br />direction from staff was to make this corner a key visual element. <br />Mr. Tralle was happy to see the balconies were removed. He liked the windows where <br />the balconies were. He considered the changes to be a big improvement. He liked the <br />corner, the strong front and the colors. He liked what they came up with. <br />Mr. Laden commented that it is a very handsome building with or without the balconies <br />and the corner is strong enough the way it is. Mr. Laden asked staff if the window reveal <br />is asked for often. Mr. Bengtson stated it is a requirement in the design standards, but <br />because this particular building is proposed to use Hardie - board, it created a difficulty. <br />Therefore, there is no need to change the guidelines. <br />Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Amendment to the Planned <br />Unit Development Final Plan for Lakewood Apartments to Alter the Approved <br />Elevations. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.