Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission postpones 303 West Meadows site-plan after materials samples requested
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Commission postponed action on a proposed 60-by-40 building at 303 West Meadows Street after commissioners and residents requested larger material samples and clearer details about metal siding and appearance; the applicant agreed to return with bigger samples and refined submittal.
Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning & Zoning Commission postponed a site-plan decision for 303 West Meadows Street after commissioners and public commenters requested larger material samples and clearer façade details.
Staff said the applicant proposes a 60-by-40 building at a lot that already contains a parking lot and access drive; the design includes metal board-and-batten–style siding with faux stone at the base. Jack (city planner) noted the submittal meets minimum code standards but that the development team preferred the board-and-batten metal look rather than a stucco appearance previously approved in other locations.
Several residents and commissioners raised concerns about the proposed metal siding’s durability, color and how the building would fit with the nearby historic commercial district and existing stucco and older homes. Public commenter Glen Owen asked whether the location would be a car sales lot; an applicant identified as Safe said the business would sell used cars and perform minor detailing.
A builder for the applicant provided small samples in the meeting and said the steel panels have a four-year paint warranty and that textured “wood-grain” variants are available. Commissioners asked for larger 2-by-2 or full-panel samples to better evaluate the look from the street. Jack told the applicant to bring a larger set of material samples and said staff would confer with the applicant about the presentation that would address questions raised by commissioners.
Motion and vote: Commissioners moved and seconded to postpone the item to the May meeting to allow the applicant to submit larger samples and a revised submittal. The vote on the postponement was 6–0 in favor.
Ending: The applicant agreed to bring larger material samples and to update the submittal for the May agenda. Staff said other applicants waiting on this item were standing by and that the commission would revisit the site plan next month.

