PL PACKET 04192005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 2005 Page 6 1 landscape and should not be removed under any circumstance. He explained that the 2 guidelines state that similar foliage and landscape treatments are acceptable for 3 change outs over time adding that this is what they would recommend. He explained 4 that the building must provide a function. He stated that the architect has reviewed 5 opportunities and alternatives to expand the existing structure noting that the proposal 6 is not acceptable, as it does not provide the utilities for long-term use. He stated that in 7 providing a new facility on this site it would provide a gateway entrance point to the 8 landscape that would go beyond and incorporate the design characteristics of the 9 historical architecture currently found. He reviewed the architectural history of the 10 design with the Commission noting that overall, the design has evolved in a very 11 satisfactory manner and currently, with the removal of the existing building, it addresses 12 and incorporates the functionality, it is sensitive and addresses concerns of the City and 13 Community and work, long-term, with the historical architectural of the park. 14 15 Vice Chair Hanson referenced the footprint and asked how much larger the proposed 16 footprint would be in comparison to the current. Mr. Tyson stated that the existing 17 footprint is approximately 2000 square feet and the new footprint would be 5500 square 18 feet with total of 11,000 square feet. 19 20 Commissioner D. Jensen noted it is assumed the parking area would probably be 21 asphalt and asked if they have considered any other alternatives and other colors that 22 would preserve the vista. Mr. Tyson stated that there could be issues due to the shape 23 of the roads. He agreed that a key part of the proposal is how they are keeping with the 24 layout. Mr. Nelson explained that there is a system used to install the pavers adding 25 that they are not noticeable when installed in the grass areas. 26 27 Commissioner J. Jenson referenced the elevation and asked how much higher from the 28 grade would the proposed building be in comparison to the existing. Mr. Duggan stated 29 that the existing is up 3.5 feet from the grade. He stated that the proposed building 30 would be smaller but similar in height. 31 32 Commissioner J. Jenson asked Mr. Duggan to review the floor plan. Mr. Duggan 33 provided the Commission with an overview of the floor plan. He stated that the layout 34 for the new building has two new fronts, one off St. Anthony Boulevard and the other 35 with the funeral home off the cemetery side to the west. The first floor incorporates a 36 chapel, a visitation room, a selection room and a lounge. The second floor would have 37 the administrative and sales offices. 38 39 Commissioner Young asked about materials for the new building noting that they are 40 trying to stay true to the intent. Mr. Duggan stated that it would be a cast stone product 41 in units similar to the granite blocks on the current building but slightly larger, with the 42 intent to replicate the masonry and coursing on existing building. The stone would be 43 similar to the color of the gray limestone used in the Tower of Memories and the 44 Mausoleum. The roof would be metal, similar to Mausoleum and Chapel. 45 46 Commissioner D. Jensen noted the procedural introduction and asked if it is important