DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD
MARCH 8, 2006
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Alan Seymour, Pete Griffin, Roger Yoder,
John Cunningham, Don Bergwall and Paula Bodey. Ken Kraus was
excused.
OTHERS
PRESENT: Jeff Sackenheim, Mike White
(Marysville Schools), Jason Isaacs, and Clerk Barb McCoy
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The
minutes from the meeting of February 8, 2006 were approved as presented.
ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS:
A
motion was made by John Cunningham to place the old business for
OLD BUSINESS:
New Elementary School –
2100 Creekview Drive – filed by Steed Hammond Paul, Inc., for Marysville
Schools
Jeff Sackenheim discussed the letter requesting some of the
concrete curbing be allowed to be omitted.
Currently there is 1,800 l.f.
in the design and they are requesting the additional 3,600 l.f. be allowed not to be there. The schools would have to endur approximately $70,000 in total cost. The storm water rentention is designed without curbing. The building is over budget
now; if have to use the curbing they may have to delete academic space inside
building.
Mrs. Body asked if any other school
is without curbing. Mrs. McCoy
stated yes; they were constructed prior to design review ordinance. Mr. Sackenheim
stated they can do the entrances in curbing. Mr. Seymour stated it would be a real
stretch from our code to eliminate all of it. Can compromise
possibly with some concessions.
Mr. Sackenheim reminded the Board they would have to redesign
the storm retention if they have to add much more curbs. Mrs. Body stated she feels there would
be long term turf damage that would be detrimental to the site if the entrance
ways are not curbed. People would
be parking and driving in the grass.
Mrs. McCoy noted the City Engineer
had provided a memo stating adding curbs to all parking spaces would necessitate
adding additional storm inlets and piping to prevent ponding in parking areas. The inclusion of curbs other than shown
on the original site plan would be detrimental to the storm drainage plan
approved for the site.
Mr. Yoder made the motion to approve the
request revising the site plan to install curbs at all three entrances; leave
curb where originally shown on site plan with the exception of the south service
drive which can be deleted.
Question put, stood:
Mrs.
Bodey Yes
Mr. Griffin Yes Mr.
Seymour Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Yoder Yes
The
site plan is to be revised and submitted to Zoning Inspector for final
approval.
NEW BUSINESS:
New
Jason Isaacs reviewed the proposed
project stating this 8-unit apartment building, to be known as Taylor Ridge
Apartments, is zoned R-5. It is
located on a peninsula piece of land across from K-Mart. It is a 3-sided frontage site. There will be 4 flat apartments in the
middle and two story townhouses on the sides. Landscaping will be on next month’s
Shade Tree agenda.
It was noted curbing is shown
around the parking area as required.
Discussion was held concerning
whether City sidewalk will be required due to the fact there is not currently
City sidewalks in the area. Mr.
Bergwall stated it would make sense to have a sidewalk so residents can walk
over to K-Mart. Mr. Isaacs stated
it seemed to be inconsistent to what is there currently.
Mr. Griffin stated it seems like
you should try to put sidewalks wherever you can. Every piece of land you place sidewalk
on now, gets to where we want to be with
sidewalks.
Mr. Cunningham stated in 1109.15
sidewalks are required in new subdivisions. Does not regulate existing property not
located in a subdivision. Mrs.
McCoy stated the City Engineer has discussed this issue and sidewalks may not be
required.
Mr. Bergwall stated in general
sidewalks should be included per code where lots are being developed. If not in code, would be nice for
tenants to have.
Mr. Griffin stated if not required
in the code he does not mind omitting the public
sidewalks.
Mr. Cunningham stated he is not
against sidewalks but questions the Board’s authority to
mandate.
Mrs. Bodey stated maybe they should
require from south side from catch basin to SR 4.
Mr. Bergwall stated in ordinance
1144.09(b)(5) “Pedestrian Safety” the site design
should provide a pedestrian friendly system. All developments should provide
pedestrian walkways between public sidewalks/streets and building
entrances.
Mr. Isaacs stated this is not a
heavy pedestrian area; should they be required to install sidewalks for people
simply to walk to K-Mart?
Mr. Yoder stated he prefers
sidewalks but because of code, not sure sidewalks are
required.
Mr. Seymour reiterated the
consensus was sidewalks are preferred but not required.
Mrs. Bodey stated she feels the
dumpster should be located elsewhere – feels it is located too close to existing
residential lot. Mr. Isaacs
answered there are trees located behind the dumpster. There is a definite line between the
house and dumpster. Anywhere else
you put the dumpster would be the first thing you see from the right of
way. Enclosure will be constructed
from wood to match the patio fencing.
A poll was taken on the dumpster
location with majority of members agreeing the present location will
suffice.
Discussion was held on the location
of the building from the parking spaces in front. Mr. Isaacs stated there will be 3’ from
sidewalk to porch of townhouses.
This will be mulched area with bushes in front of the building. He noted there will be no on-site
lighting with the exception of the individual apartment porch lights. The townhouses have a little porch entry
way.
Mr. Seymour stated the site plan is
not detailed enough. It does not
seem to match the description Mr. Isaacs is talking about tonight. He also stated there should be extra
landscaping along SR 4.
Mr. Isaacs stated there is a fence
on that property now and is not sure if he can remove it. Mrs. McCoy will verify with Street
Superintendent to see if trees can be installed inside or outside the fence and
if the fence can be removed.
Mr. Isaacs discussed the building
materials stating the front of the building only will have the 3’
wainscoting. White vinyl siding
with double 5” lap is everywhere else.
The roof shingles are a 25-year 3 tab onyx black charcoal contrast. There will be black shutters on the
front and back for all windows.
Four cupolas will be on the roof.
Mr. Griffin stated this design does
not contain the 40% requirement of stone, brick or stucco. Questioned why the applicant is
deviating from the code. This does
not meet the spirit of the code.
Mr. Isaacs stated 40% or more does
not look right in wainscoting. He
reviewed the code and disagrees with the code. Feels a rental unit should not have to
be required to have 40%.
Mr. Griffin explained the code is
derived from many hours of a lot of people agreeing what the City wanted for
expectations from future developments.
Mr. Bergwall stated then you should
ask for a variance but do not come in and say you do not like the code. That is not a good practice and it is
something the Design Review Board cannot tolerate.
Mr. Isaacs stated he certainly did
read the code. Wainscoting
architecturally looks better going only 3’ up the building. You cannot use 40% requirement on rental
properties and make it a profitable project. You cannot build this small of a unit on
a site by following the code. You
would have to rent it for $100 more a month and no one would do that. We have to use curbing according to the
code but for cost effective reasons they are trying to use vinyl siding. He stated he is not trying to be
disrespectful to the Board.
Mr. Yoder stated because of the
visibility of this site coming into the City, the 40% requirement is definitely
needed on this project.
Mr. Cunningham stated another intent of the code is how it blends with surrounding
areas. Paris Hill Apartments across
Mr. Seymour stated if this were off
Mr. Isaacs stated there will be
patio fencing for the 4 townhouses but none in the middle.
Mr. Cunningham stated you can look
at the fences as a facade – what will the fences look
like?
Mr. Seymour stated he would be
inclined to discuss alternatives for the percentages if the applicant can
concede to vinyl fence instead of wood and masonry 1/3 way up the building on
all four sides.
Mr. Isaacs asked if you want vinyl
fence and not wood fence and want wood siding but not vinyl siding? Does that make
sense?
Mr. Seymour stated this site will
make a statement. It is important
across the back to
have attractive fences.
That will add so much more to the apartments.
Mr. Cunningham
stated the vinyl fencing at 4th/Maple that is somewhat
of a colonial look would look good with the shutters.
Mrs. Bodey stated the fence should
be of masonry – vinyl does not meet code.
This property is too visible for vinyl or wood
fences.
Mr. Griffin stated the plans
submitted are not done within the spirit of the code. A lot more information is needed to make
a good decision. We need to see a
drawing with 40% stone, stucco or brick façade and a drawing that details the
fences.
Mr. Bergwall stated he hasn’t heard
enough to justify bending the rules.
This site is very visible.
Location works against applicant.
Unfairly comparing existing structures to today’s
code.
Mr. Griffin stated approving this
plan would be setting bad precedent and the Board cannot afford to do
that.
Mr. Yoder stated that wainscoting
on all sides as shown and requiring hardy plank everywhere else would meet the
intent of the code. This is needed
because of high visibility.
Mrs. Bodey agreed there are too
many things to decide without sufficient information.
Mr. Isaacs stated he has read the
code and is trying to build an affordable building. He understands that the City is
attempting to step up a level with the design of new buildings and he does feel
he has met the spirit of the code.
This site will not do City any good empty or building apartments where no
one will rent because they cost more than any other in the City. He knew this discussion would
happen. Hardy plank siding without
wainscot is a possibility. This is
not a high-end condominium project.
This is an apartment building. You have to go back and figure the numbers
that would meet code. Would have to use hardy plank only.
Mr. Yoder stated the Board wants to
see samples of materials and have the drawings be
accurate.
Mr. Cunningham made the motion to
table this item until the April meeting.
Question put, stood:
Mr.
Griffin Yes
Mr. Seymour Yes Mr.
Bergwall Yes Mr. Cunningham
Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mrs. Bodey Yes
OLD
BUSINESS
New Office Park –
Jason Isaacs stated he would like
to request that for all four buildings in this project the handicap spaces be
allowed to remain as shown on the original drawings. Building #1 would have the number of
spaces increased to 3 from 2. He
stated their civil engineers have provided a letter explaining that the spaces
are designed to be where they are because of the storm water design. The site grading is such that the
handicap spaces are in spots where there is the least slope. Moving the spaces would hinder the storm
water plan.
Discussion was held concerning the
possibility of moving the catch basins to make the handicap spaces work in the
middle of the buildings. Mrs. McCoy
stated the design of the parking area not being level is a problem for
individuals using wheelchairs.
Sloping of the parking area can cause a chair to get away from the
individual because of the slope. It
is much better to be on a flat surface and if the storm water design is designed
now for the correct sloping, the Board perhaps should not be asking for the
spaces to be moved.
Mr. Isaacs stated he has talked
with Dr. Cowgill and he does not want the spots right in front of the front
entrances. One reason is because
most of his clients do not have a handicap card. He wants those patients to have to walk
the least distance.
Mr. Bergwall stated it would take
more catch basins to have sloping installed the correct way. Is it fair for additional cost for
placement of handicap spaces when they meet the code requirements because
handicap parking is not addressed in the ordinance?
Mr. Cunningham made the motion to approve
the request of keeping handicap spots where originally shown with the addition
of one space in front of building #1 in accordance with the memo dated February
23, 2006.
Question put, stood:
Mr.
Seymour Yes
Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mrs. Bodey Yes Mr. Griffin Yes
COMMENTS
OF INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Mr.
Cunningham stated the accuracy of drawings being submitted is questionable. We need good drawings to make good
decisions. It is hard to make
informed decisions when not complete or drawings are wrong. Requested that only
complete agenda items be submitted in the future.
ADJOURNMENT:
The
meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.