PLANNING COMMISSION

DESIGN REVIEW

MINUTES OF MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 2005

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Alan Seymour, Pete Griffin, Ken Kraus, Don Bergwall and John Cunningham.  There are two vacancies.

 

OTHERS PRESENT:  Eric Phillips, Tom Kruse, Kathy House, Dennis Schulze, Steve Kelly, Kevin Atwell, Jim Casto and Barb McCoy

 

The meeting was called to order at 6:40 pm. 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 

 

The minutes of December 20, 2004 were approved as presented.

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

Coleman’s Crossing Signage Scheme – Three signs to be located along S.R. 33; Charles Lane and Coleman’s Crossing Blvd.; and Industrial Parkway and Coleman’s Crossing Blvd.

 

Steve Kelly, Bear Creek Capital, reviewed the proposed signs for the Coleman’s Crossing subdivision.  He stated the Board of Zoning Appeals approved the S.R. 33 sign as requested – 55’ in height.  The Charles Lane and Industrial Parkway signs were approved to be  38’ in height with 8’ wide cabinets as opposed to the 45’ tall/10’8” wide cabinets requested.  These three signs will present a uniformity appearance in the development.  The proposed maximum 9’ tall monument signs will be used for individual lots in the Coleman’s Crossing subdivision in lieu of the 25’ in height signs that are permitted by the sign ordinance.  They will be low ground mounted signs.  They will be consistent throughout the development being green in color that will blend with the buildings being presented.  Will have landscaping underneath signs.  They will be constructed in Reserve areas that are designated as such on the final plat for Coleman’s Crossing.  The property management for the development will maintain them.  On the individual properties, the monument signs will be maintained by the businesses.  The exact landscaping has not yet been determined.

 

Mr. Seymour questioned if there could be a solid foundation feature.

 

Mr. Kelly stated they would be constructed of architectural poles as opposed to solid foundation.

 

Mr. Kraus stated he has no problems after the Board of Zoning Appeals approved the variances.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated the development merits larger signs because it is important to show this is COLEMAN’S CROSSING and not the Wal-Mart shopping center.

 

Mr. Seymour stated he is resistant to tall signs but would rather see panels side by side and not have the signs so tall.

 

Mr. Kelly stated on SR 33 wanted some height for the traffic going 65 MHP.  For the other two signs the reserve areas will not warrant width because of utilities.

 

Mr. Griffin stated he appreciates what BZA has done but feels the signs are wrong.  He stated he realizes there are not sign standards for these type of signs that hampers the approval process, but 55’ is too tall.  The area will seem cluttered.  If too high can be negative impact to what you and the City are trying to achieve.  Not consistent with what City has done.  Disruptive to process – not necessary to have 38’ signs.  Will set a bad precedent.  Doesn’t relate to what is being done now.

 

Mr. Kelly stated it seems to be fair to have taller signs and short monument signs for individual lots.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated to some extent, he feels same way.  Supports them because nothing in City is of this scale and magnitude. If more commercial developments happen they can have similar size signs.  However, individual businesses should not be permitted to have such large signs.

 

Mr. Kraus stated it is important to marketing and development that all signs carry the same theme throughout the development that states this is Coleman’s Crossing.  All the signs need to be consistent with the logo for Coleman’s Crossing.

 

Mr. Cunningham made the motion to approve the signs for Coleman’s Crossing as presented with the variances approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals on January 10, 2005. Question put, stood:

 

Mr. Cunningham  Yes  Mr. Griffin Yes   Mr. Seymour Yes  Mr. Kraus Yes  Mr. Bergwall Yes

 

Home DepotTo be located on Coleman’s Crossing Blvd.

 

Steve Kelly reviewed the history of this proposed project.  He stated Home Depot is a very strong tenant and feels other tenants will follow.  Holds in high regard to project.  Came up with design to meet City’s code.  Submitted first design that looked like Sawmill’s store, which is a very typical design.  Knowing they liked Marysville they felt original store would be appropriate.  However, after meeting with administration, staff, and Planning Commission members, they worked with Home Depot to come up with a new design that has more architectural appeal.  We heard “bring Wal-Mart and this project together”, which they did.  Went away from exposed aggregate and introduced more split face block, CMU material, has orange trim, etc.  Discussed materials that were shown.  Elevation – many architectural features.  Contractor pick-up area is best attribute.  They tried to do something to bring material out as opposed to slope metal roof.  Flows with rest of building – created an entrance and appeal to this part of the building.  8’x8’ imprint to precast above CMU split face block.  CMU Wayne’s coating along bottom near entrances.  For main entrance – 2 gables on either end give an entrance area.  Repeats split face CMU and below lighter color.  Warm blend of colors being used – earth “tonish”, precast concrete wall.  In garden center area – ornamental fences used that have columns.  Standard garden center roofs – continues to blend with building.  Not all of garden center has roof covering.  Back of building has brick imprint – split face CMU with Block #2.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated it appears to be like Hilliard’s Home Depot.  Mr. Kelly stated it is close.

 

Mr. Kelly continued with discussion of the left elevation, stating the garden center towards Coleman’s Crossing.

 

Along SR 33 is the short side of building.  This will blend when 2-3 restaurants develop between Home Depot and the Honda site.  Mechanicals are on rooftop toward center of building and are not in line of sight.

 

Mr. Seymour stated along S.R. 33 and Coleman’s Crossing there seems to be a mass of wrought iron fencing.  Questioned if this could be broken up with columns.  Would enhance overall visual appearance.  Discussion held concerning the nature of this business – will have forklifts, etc., being used inside building.

 

Mr. Kelly stated ornamental decorative fencing painted black with finished metal caps will be used around garden center area.  EIFS will be used on top, light in color with smooth finished pre-cast split face CMU base with 8”x8” brick pattern.  Building is located perpendicular to site.

 

Exterior lighting reviewed.  Will be down lit fixtures.  Color to match building.  Will be photometric lighting that has no glare and allows safety within the site.  Lighting goes down to pavement.  Color of lighting will have a white color.  Feels uniformity in development is important.

 

Will not have outdoor trash area.  Will have trash compactor inside building that compresses the boxes and trash.

 

Board members agreed the design of this building is unique and will be a building Marysville will be proud of.  Board expressed appreciation with the cooperation among everyone involved that resulted in such a good result.

 

Mr. Griffin stated Coleman’s Crossing is a showcase for Marysville with Honda, Wal-Mart Supercenter and also Home Depot.  Feels with Scotts Company right here in Marysville there will many Scott executives in and out of the store.  Have only one chance to do right and feels we are awfully close to it.

 

Mr. Kraus asked to assure no chain link fencing will be used.  Mr. Kelly stated NO CHAIN LINK.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated this design is so much better than the first rendering.  Had opportunity to review plans more and looked at other stores.  Comments summarized meet both letter and spirit of code.  Copies of Mr. Bergwall’s memo to be made part of minutes.

 

Mr. Kelly stated all dialog with all parties got us here tonight with this design.  We now have a flavor for the future buildings so we can talk openly about compatibility of future projects.

 

Mr. Seymour stated that in Section 1144.02 “Intent” of the code, it states “Encourage superior design quality of the City and strengthen civic pride in the aesthetic environment of Marysville.”  This has been accomplished.

 

Mr. Kelly stated need to break ground by May for a November opening date.  He stated that Home Depot has a process where they review the target area for the proposed store where demographics, salary averages, market research, projected sales and the general economics of the target area are reviewed to determined best type of store for area.  After the research, it all led to this final proposal.

 

Board members concurred all the outside work done helped in this process.  Feels all the contact between the applicant, City, Planning Commission members, staff members, helped this project be resolved in one meeting.  It takes a lot of communication and community involvement to make Planning Commission’s job easier. 

 

Mr. Bergwall made the motion to approve the plans received in City offices on January 11, 2005, for Home Depot.  Question put, stood:

 

Mr. Cunningham  Yes  Mr. Seymour Yes   Mr. Kraus Yes  Mr. Bergwall Yes  Mr. Griffin Yes

 

MISCELLENOUS:

 

Mr. Kraus distributed proposed language that needs to be added to the zoning code concerning “POD’s” (temporary storage units that are dropped off, customer fills, and is then removed to a storage area).  Mrs. McCoy agreed that an ordinance is needed because she has already received complaints that some are parked on the street and residents have called in wanting to know how long they can be located in the driveway.  Agreed to add this to list of upcoming agenda items.

 

Also need to be reviewed/added to the sign regulations is the commercial subdivision/industrial signs.  Mrs. McCoy stated she will try to pull samples off internet from other cities.

 

Discussion held on list of items that need resolved by Planning Commission.  Requested the former list be reviewed and the following new items added on all upcoming Planning Commission agenda:

 

          Chapter 1135 revised to reflect lot density

          County Home Road zoning

          POD’s regulations

          Commercial subdivision/industrial identification signs

         

ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.


Marysville Planning Commission

Design Review Process

January 12, 2005

 

Home Depot architectural design review considerations based on code section 1144.04 definitions and 1144.10 Standards for Commercial & Office Design

 

Taking into consideration the following perspective:

1.     2003 Code requirements for commercial buildings concerning building materials, color, architectural features and compatibility with the surrounding area

2.     The intent for Coleman’s Crossing to be the new commercial gateway to Marysville and exposure to Route 33

3.     The desire from the community and developers for Coleman’s Crossing to be a “come to” commercial location populated by commercial establishments that will service the needs of the community in a pleasing manner.

4.     The desire to get off to a rapid and successful start at Coleman’s Crossing with quality commercial development

5.     The recognition that Home Depot is on a schedule that provides a window of opportunity that if missed could result in a multi-year delay for Marysville and could impact other commercial clients strategies in Marysville

6.     The decisions must be based on conformance with City codes and based on the best interests short and long-term for the community

 

The following decision points for the basis for a recommendation:

1.     The Home Depot while a major commercial facility is a building supplies center / lumber yard and competes to some extent with 84 Lumber and McAuliffe’s

2.     The building design incorporates materials as specified in 1144.10 a.1 such as decorative block, stucco in the form of EIFS, and contemporary durable materials in the form of the brick embossed precast concrete panels.  There is minimal use of aluminum or metal siding and no vinyl.  The building meets the code requirements and spirit of the code, in my opinion.

3.     The potential should be viewed as real, that if Home Depot cannot get approval quickly to maintain the window of opportunity they might pull out for sometime.  This could affect more than just loosing Home Depot and potentially deter other potentials at least for some time.

 

Recommendation:

I would recommend approving the design as modified (if any) after the discussion period this evening. 

The recommendation is based on the fact that they meet the code requirements under contemporary durable materials, and the architectural features incorporated in the design.  The nature of their specific business and willingness to come into the development early, and overall best interests and desires of the community become the basis for the recommendation.