PLANNING COMMISSION

DESIGN REVIEW

MINUTES OF MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2005

 

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

 

OTHERS PRESENT:  Karen Page, Liz Meeder and Barb McCoy

 

The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm. 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 

 

The minutes of January 12, 2005 were approved as presented.

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

Movie Gallery – G Zero Properties – 333 S. Main Street

 

The checklist as provided by Barb McCoy was reviewed with the following comments:

 

#1-9 – all ok

#10 – elevations to scale – appearance is issue

#11 – needs discussed

#12 – needs discussed

#14 – landscape plan approved by Shade Tree Commission

#15-19 – all ok

#20 – N/A – site has existing City sidewalks

#21 – storm water issues being reviewed by City Engineer.  It was noted an existing storm sewer will require relocation

#22-26 – Building materials – needs discussion

#27 – colors – needs discussion

 

Mr. Kraus suggested including a better site map with future applications because it is hard to figure out exactly where properties are located.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated site plan shows the building being constructed on top of the bank of town run.  He is concerned about bank’s integrity – need to assure building debris during construction does not get into town run.  Needs verification building will not be in path of high water.

 

Discussion held concerning the flood plain.  Mrs. McCoy stated the back part of the property against the town run is located in the flood plain.  Concern of building in flood plain because it causes problems upstream at times.  Can move building to east a little.  This would require variance because it would encroach on the southeast side.

 

Discussion held concerning location of the dumpster.  Members concurred it should not be located in the middle of the parking lot – is too visible.  Mr. Kraus suggested moving the dumpster to where existing handicap spot is located and use the brick material for the enclosure to blend in with the building.  Mr. Kraus also stated the handicap spot should be located in the middle, in front of the entrance door.  Probably should have two spots instead of one.  Not appropriate to put handicap parking in corner – need to accommodate people in need with close proximity to front entrance.

 

Mr. Seymour questioned if the building could be turned any other way on the lot.  Site location is very visible and it would be undesirable to have the dumpster in the middle of the parking lot.  Would dumpster be needed at all?  It was agreed if the dumpster is needed, it should be up against building.  It was noted there are 18 parking spaces and only 16 are required.  You may loose one spot for the dumpster.  Could add another handicap space.

 

Mr. Griffin stated he is disappointed with the proposal and feels the owner should be present for discussion.  Mrs. Page stated she has never met the applicant for this project; only contact she has had is via mail, e-mail, fax, etc.  He is a client that lives in Arkansas and is not sure if he has ever seen the site in person.   Mrs. Page stated whatever the board suggests she will relay to owner.

 

Mr. Seymour noted it looks light tight parking area; Mr. Bergwall stated 9’X19’ meets code.

 

Discussion held concerning having a sidewalk going from the building to existing City sidewalk on Main Street to give pedestrians a safe walkway.  Mr. Kraus stated sidewalk that is located next to the building could be sloped with curb stops if they are not raised sidewalks with curbs.

 

Liz Meeder, owner of other property in the City, stated she is a member of the Uptown Renewal Team and noted this property is part of the proposed expansion of the historical district.  Feels it should fit in with the historic nature of what is now uptown.  Mr. Kraus stated because the site is not currently in the historic district, as much as board would agree, they have to abide with the code.  Mr. Griffin stated we have the design review ordinance that states buildings are required to be compatible with the surrounding area.

 

Mrs. Page showed samples of the proposed brick, EIFS material, white steel siding and red metal cap.

 

Review of the site plan elevations dated 12/09/04 shows the following:

 

·  South elevation – to be constructed of brick, EIFS, glass

·  East elevation – 5’ overhang over sidewalk made of EIFS with glass/brick with red metal cap.  Unsure if there is a panel hanging down for the overhang from what is shown on drawing.

·  West elevation – steel siding – polar white

·  North elevation- steel siding – polar white

 

#26 states 40% on facades should be constructed of a decorative stone, brick or stucco material.  That means ALL sides.  It was noted brick satisfies the requirement, EIFS does also.  However, there is excess metal siding being proposed.

 

Roof material proposed to be metal.  There is not a parapet that covers roof.  Not sure if mechanicals will be on rooftop but they would not be hidden.  The roof is metal with a very shallow slope.  Mr. Seymour noted downspouting shows water going into landscaping – downspouts should be connected directly to storm sewer system.

 

COLORS – EIFS (London fog) and brick colors are ok.  Code calls for natural colors – polar white steel siding is not appropriate because of  material.

 

FACADES AND EXTERIOR WALLS

 

#31 – N/A

#32 – NO

#33 – N/A

#34 – N/A

#35 – a lot of windows on 2 sides

#36 – no – west and north elevations are to be constructed of steel siding.

 

Discussion held concerning what type of material is under the windows – glass, metal siding?  Should be durable material.  Could be unsightly.

 

#37 – existing trees on other side of town run.  It was noted trees help stabilize earth and prevents erosion.

 

EXTERIOR LIGHTING – not noted.  Not sure if will be in parking lot or on building.  It was noted whatever type of lighting is used, will need to be installed so there is no glare.  Lighting necessary but undefined.

 

#41-42 – No fences

$43 – No loading area

#47-49 - Exterior signs – small ground sign near parking entrance would be appropriate.  Mrs. McCoy stated applicant wishes to request a variance to allow an 18’-20’ tall sign.  COMMISSION RECOMMENDS SIZE BE RESTRICTED TO WHAT IS PERMITTED BY SIGN ORDINANCE – 5’ in height/ 12 sq. ft.

 

Mr. Kraus read the following from the zoning code:

 

DESIGN REVIEW - 1144.02 INTENT.

 

          The intent of the design review process is to:

 

·        Ensure that the location, configuration, and architectural design of buildings and their materials and colors are visually harmonious on the planned site and with surrounding development and the environment.

·        Ensure that the location, configuration, and design of signs and their materials and colors are consistent with the character and scale of the buildings to which they relate and surrounding development.

·        Safeguard and enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and quality of the City to protect and enhance the City’s attractiveness to residents, tourists and visitors, and to stimulate business and industry by encouraging excellence of design.

·        Encourage superior design quality of the City and strengthen civic pride in the aesthetic environment of Marysville.

 

It was noted under intent of code, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 failed.

 

Mr. Bergwall stated owner could challenge by saying “do you want us to build a poorly maintained house?” because of the houses located in the immediate area.

 

Mr. Cunningham stated there are other nice commercial buildings in the neighborhood.  Next door is a nice house converted to beauty shop.  It’s community – not next door.

 

Mr. Seymour stated building should have steep roof, no massive windows, possibly horizontal siding along with brick with overhangs.

 

The building does not have to be a two-story, but it cannot be a box.  Building would look nice to have it look like a rehabbed building – like an old one-room schoolhouse.

 

Mr. Kraus stated the site is highly visible and is important to get building right.

 

Mr. Seymour stated this proposal simply does not architecturally blend in with neighborhood.

 

Mr. Griffin stated this is a prime entryway into City –need to assure compliance.

 

Mr. Kraus made the motion to approve the request.  Question put, stood:

 

Mr. Seymour No   Mr. Kraus No   Mr. Bergwall No    Mr. Griffin No   Mr. Cunningham No

 

The design review request for the Movie Gallery to be located at 333 S. Main Street failed.  Minutes to be sent to applicant.

 

MISCELLENOUS:

 

Mr. Bergwall stated there is a rumor concerning a proposed Family Time video store to be constructed at the old BP site.  These buildings are quite attractive, using premium materials, but won’t be compatible to surrounding area.  Buildings are made of brick, block and glass blocks.  Because it’s not located in the historic district now, how can Design Review Board turn something like that down?

 

Mr. Cunningham stated he is a member of the uptown renewal team and they meet again on 2-23-05.  Will suggest proposals be submitted to Planning Commission to make every effort to move forward with the new expanded district and get it changed ASAP.

 

ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.