Laserfiche WebLink
Updates to the site plan included the addition of a building for mechanicals and an extension to <br /> the patio to allow for more, usable outdoor space. Parking and lighting would remain as <br /> approved previously. Mr. Murner confirmed that the building was within 200 feet of the river <br /> and intended to keep the coverage under 1000 square feet at 590 square feet. The space was <br /> moved over 5 feet. Rain gardens would remain in place. Regarding color of the building, the <br /> applicant wished to change from driftwood grey to cranberry. <br /> Mr. Fudala stated that, under design guidelines, re-roofing would be like material, so the <br /> guidelines would require asphalt roofing. Regarding windows, replacement should be casement, <br /> which was not a preferred historic window. Double hung windows were considered appropriate <br /> for the Historic District, according to the guidelines. Additionally, a wall of windows would <br /> typically not be allowed. It was noted that the roof and the wall of windows would be visible <br /> from the roadway. <br /> Mr. Balzarini supported the design that would give a vacant building new life, but agreed that the <br /> changes were not historical. <br /> Mr. Pittsley agreed that the design was nice but that it was not meeting the established historic <br /> guidelines. <br /> Mr. Murner stated that they were seeking an exemption from aspects of the guidelines, noting <br /> that they were investing in the building and wished to make the tanks visible to their customers. <br /> Mr. Fudala inquired whether the customers would see the tanks through the window. Mr. <br /> Murner empphasized that the tanks were part of their business and they wished to highlight them. <br /> Mr. Robbins referenced the existing T1-11, adding that the board and batten would be an <br /> improvement. <br /> There was inquiry regarding the three front windows and Mr. Balzarni inquired whether they <br /> would be smaller. Mr. Robbins felt it made sense to have smaller windows that would be located <br /> in the bathroom and hallway and Mr. Balzarini agreed. <br /> MOTION: Mr. Robbins made a motion to approve the front windows. Mr.Balzarini <br /> seconded the motion. All voted unanimously. <br /> Regarding the wall of windows, Mr. Balzarini inquired about maintaining the middle window, <br /> but not the triangle shape windows, due to the amount of glass. Mr. Robbins reviewed the <br /> existing plan and Mr. Murner confirmed that they would be replacing the existing windows with <br /> smaller windows. Mr. Murner reported that the Design Review Committee stated that they <br /> would approve as long as Naukabout maintained the buffer. Mr. Fudala confirmed that all sides <br /> of the property were viewable from public property. Mr. Robbins suggested replacing with three <br /> tall windows but Mr. Murner responded that it would be a structural issue. Mr. Murner indicated <br /> if the three high windows were not allowed, they would maintain the original plan. <br /> MOTION: Mr. Robbins made a motion not to approve the triangle windows on the second <br /> row of windows. Mr. Balzarini seconded the motion. All voted unanimously. <br /> 2 <br />