DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
APRIL 12,
2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Alan Seymour,
Pete Griffin, Roger Yoder, John Cunningham, Don Bergwall and Ken Kraus. There is one vacancy.
OTHERS PRESENT: Jason
Isaacs, Dan Navin, and Clerk Barb McCoy
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The
minutes from the meeting of March 8, 2006 were approved with minor changes.
ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS: None
ORGANIZATION:
Rules of
Procedure:
Mr. Kraus
made the motion to amend #5 as follows:
Unless conflicts of interest are recognized,
each member of the Board shall be required to vote upon all questions before
the Board. When such conflicts are
recognized the member may leave the room or at a minimum refrain from any
conversation or discussion of the issue.
Question
put, stood:
Mr. Kraus
Yes Mr.
Bergwall Yes Mr. Cunningham No Mr. Yoder Yes
Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Seymour No
Add # 11
At a minimum the motion must have a majority of 4 votes in order to pass
excluding abstentions.
Add #12
The Design Review Board chairman may appoint Ad hoc committees as necessary to
deal with matters needing attention.
These committees shall then report their findings back to the Design
Review Board as a whole. After the
matter has been addressed, the committee may be dissolved by majority vote from
the Board. Committee meetings must be
advertised at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. Minutes for the committee will be done by a
member of the committee and a copy give to the Design Review Board Secretary.
Mr. Kraus
made the motion to approve the Rules of Procedure as changed. Question put, stood:
Mr.
Bergwall Yes Mr.
Cunningham No Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Seymour No Kraus Yes
Election
of Chairman:
Mr. Cunningham nominated Alan Seymour for
Chairman of the Design Review Board.
Voice vote was unanimous.
Election
of Vice-Chairman:
Mr. Griffin nominated Ken Kraus. Voice vote was unanimous for Ken Kraus to be
vice-chairman of the Design Review Board.
Mr.
Cunningham recommended the Rules of Procedures be made available at all
meetings.
NEW BUSINESS:
Office Park
Discussion was held of whether this
agenda item should include all three buildings that remain Buildings #2, 3,
and 4. Although they are similar in
material and design, it is unclear how the final building design will look with
buildings #2 and 4 to be wider than building #3. They may have a need for more dormers or
cupolas.
Mr. Isaacs stated the plan is to
have 3 dormers and 2 cupolas on buildings #2 and 4 and 2 dormers and one cupola
on building #3.
Mr. Isaacs stated his main concern
is that it takes an application fee each time he has to submit to the Design
Review Board. Mrs. McCoy stated they can
consider the future buildings an amendment to this original request.
Voice vote was unanimous to look at
this agenda item as only building #3 for approval.
Mr. Kraus stated he is still
concerned about handicap parking for building #3. Discussion held on the approval of site plan
for this site. Because of slope of
parking lot, storm drainage, etc., the board permitted the handicap spaces to
be left as requested. Mr. Kraus stated
if the spaces are not moved to in front of the front door, he would only have
one way to vote. Feels they should not
put handicap spaces out in the back 40.
Stated he is very displeased with this decision.
Mr. Isaacs reviewed the building
material stating cultured limestone will be installed across the bottom like
Building #1. The stone will be laid
randomly with some sort of order. It was
noted the wainscot for building #1 is 3-4
and the wainscot for building #3 (also for #2 and 4) will go up past
first level - approximately 8-9.
Mr. Bergwall stated it is important
to assure the source they are obtaining the limestone from will guarantee stone
will be available to match the last buildings when they are constructed. Mr. Isaacs state he will check the
availability for the future.
Mr. Seymour stated the vent shown
on the side of the building should be size proportionate and material should be
of quality material. Mr. Griffin
commented the vent should be compatible with window size.
Mr. Isaacs stated 30-year
dimensional shingles will be used. The
same will be used for all four buildings.
Downspouts and gutters will be all white. Each building will have a lit cupola with a
gentle glow effect. A 12 standard
overhang will be used all the way around the building.
Mr. Seymour stated the overhangs
for dormers and cupolas should be proportionate to the sizes used. He stated he has a concern of overhangs not
being used to keep in contrast with horse barn flavor they stated they are
trying to achieve.
Mr. Isaacs stated all wood windows
will be used with white exterior. A
white hardy plank will be used. The
front porch will have two columns with wood trim material above the stone. There will be an arch over the front
door. Underneath will be a flat soffitt material, to be same material as rest of building.
Mr. Seymour asked if building #3
has same impact from SR 4 as building #4 will have. He stated he is concerned with the south
elevation because the door is not enhanced in any way.
Mr. Isaacs stated they can use trim
material to wrap the door which gives more of a bold look as opposed to it
looking like a service door. He stated
for exterior lighting lamp posts will be used in front of buildings #2, 3, and
4 by the walk. There will be three lamp
posts additionally in the landscape area in the middle of the parking lot. There will be no lighting mounted to the
building.
Mr. Bergwall stated he is concerned
with no parking lot lights because in the winter months it will get dark
earlier.
Mr. Cunningham questioned who
currently owns the property. Mr. Isaacs
stated Dr. Cowgill has purchased the remaining 8
acres but they still have the same plans except there may be more office
buildings on the east side of the property with fewer homes.
Mr. Griffin stated he remembers the
discussion with City Council when it was said this project better turn out like
what was discussed with no major changes.
Planning Commission had discussed two different zoning districts for
this very reason. City Council stated if
anything different is proposed for this area there will be a lot of
unhappiness.
Mr. Cunningham stated the same
thing applies to the Weinlein property. What they are proposing to do today is not
what they HAVE to do. They can come back
and do whatever they want according to the zoning code.
Mr. Isaacs stated they are not
trying to do anything underhanded; this opportunity has come up with Dr. Cowgill and they sold the property.
Mr. Seymour commented in the letter
from Isaacs Enterprises dated March 30, 2006, the references to buildings #2
and 4 need to be removed from the letter.
Discussion was held concerning
proposed signs for this development. Mr.
Isaacs stated the main signs will be at the entrance in landscape area #4 and
#3. Will have
It was noted the dumpster enclosure
is required to be at least 1 higher than the dumpster.
Mr. Griffin made the motion to
approve the request for building #3 with the following:
·
Approval
for building #3 only
·
Buildings
#2 & 4 can be made a part of this application as amendment in the future
with no fee
·
Cultured
stone to be used for wainscoting that will be 8-9
·
Size
of false vents and overhangs on cupolas and dormers to be size proportionate
·
Out
door lighting to consist of one post light for this building
·
Door
on south side of building to be enhanced
The question put, stood:
Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Yoder Yes
Mr. Griffin Yes Mr.
Seymour Yes Mr. Kraus No Mr. Bergwall Yes
COMMENTS
OF INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Mr.
Bergwall stated the agenda item that was tabled at last months meeting for the
4-unit apartment building on
Mr.
Cunningham made the motion to add the agenda item
After discussion, Mr. Isaacs
requested this agenda item be tabled until the July meeting. Mr. Kraus made the motion to table this item
until the July meeting unless applicant requests it be put on the agenda at an
earlier meeting. Voice vote was
unanimous to table.
Mr.
Griffin stated that Planning Commission has to be more careful how they look at
projects. Things happen with property
owners. They need to know more specific
information that is relative enough to the zoning. Not intention of this Commission or Council
to let commercial go beyond a certain section of the property on Scott Farms
Blvd. He stated that the property has
changed hands for Keystone Crossing to Maronda Homes. As Planning Commission goes forward you must
remember you cannot assume when reviewing plans for project that the land will
not be sold to someone else.
Mrs.
McCoy stated when approval is given it goes with the land, not developer.
Mr.
Cunningham stated the Design Review Board has not really reviewed signs but so
far they have been nice. Keep in mind
the design review ordinance states they should be low profile. Mrs. McCoy stated she is required to follow
the sign ordinance.
Mr.
Seymour stated he is still concerned with the lack of details in the request
items.
Mr. Kraus
stated he is concerned with handicap parking locations. Is going to meet with Phil Roush to see if
applicants can be informed up front what Design Review Board wants. Also, wants an agenda item for the May
meeting to rezone property on Scott Farms Blvd. to R-2 before anything gets
done with the east property.
Mr. Yoder
stated he noticed on the site plan for
Mrs.
McCoy stated she has potentially two zoning issues for the May agenda
ADJOURNMENT: The
meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.