My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
PC Packet 05.19.17
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Agendas/Packets
>
2017 PC Packets
>
PC Packet 05.19.17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/10/2018 11:39:42 AM
Creation date
12/10/2018 8:31:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
5/19/2017
Document Type
Agenda/Packets
Commission Name
Planning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
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 Commission <br />March 23, 2017 <br />Page 2 <br />would rather paint the metal units, themselves, rather than installing a metal shroud around the units and have <br />that as an extra cost and maintenance issue. <br />Commissioner Tjernlund stated that he was comfortable with staff continuing to work with the applicant on <br />adequate screening for those units. <br />Commissioner McRoberts asked staff if they were comfortable with continuing to work with the applicant on <br />adequate screening for the rooftop mechanical units. <br />Leitz stated that the Commercial and Industrial Design Guidelines suggests having an architectural element that <br />adequately screens the equipment from view, compared to the installation of a metal shroud if the mechanical <br />equipment is not adequately screened. She stated that it is in staff's opinion that the parapet is increased to <br />solve this issue ahead of time, however would continue to work with the applicant if the parapet is not raised to <br />ensure the mechanical units are screened. <br />Commissioner Arcand asked if the parapet was part of the main structure of the building. <br />Mr. Shaw stated that the height of the parapet varies because the roofline slopes to the south. He stated that <br />they are proposing to locate the units towards the center of the building to help with screening, as well. <br />Commissioner McRoberts asked if there was a visibility issue with the mechanical units, if it would most likely <br />be from the north elevation. <br />Mr. Shaw stated there would more likely be a visibility issue from the north compared to the south elevation. <br />He stated if there was an issue with screening, they would propose to paint those units the same color of the roof <br />edge. <br />Commissioner Rosenquist asked if low profile units were being installed and suggested those are looked into to <br />help with the screening issue. <br />Mr. Shaw stated he would be happy to look into low profile units and if something was still visible, he would be <br />willing to paint the units the same color as the roof edge. <br />Commissioner Rosenquist suggested looking into the low profile units and providing staff with elevations and <br />site line drawings with those units to see if those would be adequately screened. <br />Mr. Shaw stated he would be willing to do that. <br />Commissioner Arcand asked the applicant if it would be possible to lower the portion of the roof where the <br />mechanical units are proposed to be. <br />Mr. Shaw stated that would not be feasible. <br />Commissioner Tjernlund stated that he believed it was important to keep in mind that this is an industrial area. <br />Mr. Shaw directed the Planning Commission to the site line visual provided in their packets. He stated that <br />view was from Fenway. Mr. Shaw stated that he is trying to avoid having to burden the owners at the end of the <br />project with screening these units further with costly upgrades and maintenance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.