DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MINUTES OF MEETING

MAY 9, 2007

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Dave Klug, John Cunningham, Larry George, George McVey, Alan Seymour,  Ken Kraus and  Scott Draughn.

 

OTHERS PRESENT:  Jerry Murray, Tracie Carpenter, Mike Shvester,  Hin Chen (Kevin), Doug Furbee, Glenn Remus, Scott Shaffer, Jennie Gates, Bob Meeder, Chris Davis, Bill Morgan, Andrea Morgan, City Planner Greg DeLong and Clerk (Zoning Inspector) Barb McCoy

 

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

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:  

 

The minutes from the meeting of April 11, 2007, were approved as presented.

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

Certificate of Appropriateness Historic Uptown – Modify Exterior of Building – 211 E. 5th Street

 

City Planner Greg Delong stated it should be noted work on this property began prior to this public hearing.  Staff did inform the applicant that the work must stop on the building until the Design Review Board meeting and the Board made a decision.  The applicant did not adhere to this request and work continued.  Based on the submitted application, the applicant installed vinyl windows.  According to the design guidelines, windows and doors shall be replaced with similar materials and styles of the original windows and doors.  Woods and vinyl clad wood windows and doors similar to the original are required.  Vinyl windows are not mentioned being permitted.  The doors appear to be metal doors.

 

Jennie Gates, project manager, stated this building was built in 1873 and was purchased by the present owner in 2006.  They worked with an architect planner.  Jennie stated work did start on this project prior to obtaining the proper certificate of appropriate.  They obtained occupancy permits for 2 apartments upstairs from Union County.  The building had been broken into twice.  The application was submitted on April 2, missing the deadline by four days.  There were problems with the structure when she was out of town and there were some structural issues so the windows were installed.  Ms. Gates distributed additional pictures and information on the building.  Mr. Cunningham stated the ordinance states the windows shall be wood or vinyl clad windows.  Ms. Gates stated she does not read where it does not allow for vinyl windows.  It does not spell out they are not permitted.  If you look at the original building, it has been replaced by who knows what era.  They are trying to restore it to look like it originally did.  To put original wood windows in it would cost over $60,000.  Ms. Gates reviewed the information she had distributed. Feels vinyl windows are appropriate.  There is a difference in vinyl windows.  The ones installed have contours to them; there is a difference in styles and types of vinyl windows. 

 

Mr. Seymour asked if this request is for overall approval of the building in its entirety.  Keep everything in perspective.  That building was on the verge of not being here anymore.  There is a salvation going on here and there is an opportunity to save this structure and to bring it into historic value.  Impressed they save the cornices.  As go forward in reviewing, need to pay attention to detail, need to remember this building is being salvaged.  Vinyl windows may not serve the letter of the law, but vinyl windows are well intended.

 

Ms. Gates stated the cornices were refurbished.  They were ready to fall.  She stated they don’t feel they are above the law; they have good intentions.  Some mistakes have been made; this is their first trial.  It is the first time they have come to this Board for historical review.  She stated they have received nothing but compliments; people saying thank you.  On the interior of building they saved parts as much as could; hardware, doors, everything that could be saved.  Intentions are to make everything done in the downtown area as historical as can be done.

 

Ms. Gates stated they went to great detail to make sure arch was retained.  The applicant showed several pictures of buildings downtown where that was not done.  When they could and when appropriate, products that were asked for were used.  We chose to use the best products we could to trim out the windows.  The doors are for a commercial property.  There are guidelines through the county that have to be followed.  That is one of the reasons why the windows were already installed – there was a problem with the building’s integrity so instead of boarding up the windows for 6 weeks they went ahead with the project.  Applicant stated they do not feel they are above the law.

 

Ms. Gates explained they are using paint colors for the trim color that will show the details of the trim.  In the guidelines it stated to use darker color for detail, which is what is being used.  The building is not painted; colonial wood comes pre-primed.  It looks like it was painted but they did not paint the building.  The whole building will be painted.  Building has been painted previously; cannot take paint off without damaging the brick.  Applicant stated they are restoring the building to the east of this building also.  Because we do not know what is under the material that is there now, would we be able to take off the front of that building without the Board’s permission to see what is there so we can design the front of that building?  Mr. Cunningham stated he does not think that would be a problem knowing what surprises you can run into.  Concern is there was an issue with this building; there was a structural issue and this could happen again and that would violate our regulations.  Ms. Gates stated then we would have to board it up and hope the timing would be better to come before this Board. 

 

Paint colors reviewed – legs, top portion to be Nomadic Desert; trim to be Hopsack and rest to be white.  Mr. Draughn stated his biggest problem is this project was done before we saw it.  Would have liked to have seen sample of vinyl.  We took great pain to make sure we had control of the buildings downtown.  When you went into this project you had some idea what this building was going to look like.  Mr. Cunningham stated he agrees with Mr. Draughn.  Because of the way it was approached, we need for the record show our disappointment in how it was approached.  At the same time, we commend you for the work you are doing.  We have to be concerned with precedence.  Ms. Gates said when she went back to her stepfather and told him she didn’t get the form in on time he wanted to know how to avoid this in the future.  Mr. Cunningham stated this cannot be tolerated.  It could have been a bad situation where it was not done correctly and you have to go back and tear it all out.  Mr. Seymour discussed the trim and stated he felt there could be more trim pieces around the cornices to make it more period.  Ms. Gates stated they could add to it.  Chris Davis, contractor, explained how they replaced the roof and while doing so they ran into problems where they had to remove the cornices for safety reasons.  Discussed how they matched it and used the exact same trim around the roof.  Tried to duplicate everything that was on the building originally.   Once it is painted it will show up more.  Mr. Seymour stated his preference on the front doors is that they would be wood doors like on some of the other buildings in town (Haggerty House and Casa Fiesta).

 

Mr. DeLong requested the Board give their opinion on what their opinion is of 1136.12 for vinyl windows so in the future you can be consistent for all properties in the downtown area.  Go on the record if you approve vinyl windows tonight because there is a conflict in interpretation of staff and the Board of what the term vinyl windows mean.  Mr. Cunningham stated there were no windows here when they started.  What windows are they suppose to adhere to?  Mr. DeLong stated there were no vinyl windows in the last 1800’s.  All he is asking is that you are consistent for all property owners and buildings in the downtown area.  That is why I gave you the letter tonight so across the board for these property owners you are consistent.  Do something where you say vinyl windows are appropriate for certain windows.  I worked in communities where wood windows were required.  Mr. Cunningham stated the cost would be prohibitive for a homeowner or building and they would not be able to renovate the buildings.  What would like to see in language terms is appearance, talk about appearance.  Often times from a distance you can’t tell vinyl from other material.  Ms. Gates states the code makes reference that storefront windows can be aluminum but upper windows cannot be vinyl.  Mr. Draughn stated we want to make sure people do their homework.  We did not get to approve these vinyl windows; luckily these windows are correct.  Mr. Kraus stated we have an opportunity at all meetings for non-agenda items for future applicants to come and discuss their future projects.  Ms. Gates states she was not informed of that process.  Mr. Kraus asked what the difference in they way they call a vinyl window and a vinyl clad window.  If there is no difference, then why is the code written the way it is written.  Mr. Cunningham stated they do need to look at language- it is not clear.  What should language should be in the code.  Mr. Draughn stated his problem with vinyl window is that they are white on the inside.  They are not period on the inside.  They are supposed to be wood on the inside.  White is not appropriate in a historical home.  Mr. DeLong stated he has concerns about the certification from the State Preservation Office if they would deem a building historical with the wrong type of vinyl windows.  

 

Discussion was held on the decorative features that could be used on the trim – Mr. Davis stated they could run a 2” cornice along the top.  Mr. Kraus asked what would be done for handicap accessibility.  Mr. Davis stated at the left hand door the concrete would be removed for a handicap entrance.  Mr. Seymour stated there may be some buildings in the downtown area that are not accessible.  Mr. Davis stated the owner wants this building to be ADA compliant.  Mr. Seymour discussed the negligence in this agenda item.  Prefer Greg and Barb research what penalty could be accessed in this case and future cases.  We are being forgiving as reasonable as possible, but feel there should be penalties accessed here.  Mr. Cunningham stated Greg and Barb finding any way in the future to discourage this in the future would be very helpful. 

 

Mr. Seymour made the motion to approve this item with the following conditions:

 

Ø     2” wood cornice piece along the top of the building

Ø     Handicap entrance required 

 

The question put, stood:

 

Mr. Draughn Yes   Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Seymour Yes  Mr. Klug Yes  Mr. Kraus No   Mr. McVey Yes   Mr. George Yes 

 

Certificate of Appropriateness was approved for this project with the above conditions.  Revisions to be submitted for final approval by the Zoning Inspector.

 

Mr. Kraus stated he voted no because they did not follow procedure, they did not attempt to contact the Design Review Board and otherwise correct the error before it got to this point.

 

Bob Meeder, part of investment group restoring 211 E. 5th St. and 225 E. 5th St. stated one of the things he did not hear in this case which is paramount for financial side of restoration is if it has economic value.  Economic value is related to what type of rent you can get out of the building.  Have to hold the rent to a competitive rate.  That is one reason for the windows the way they are.  There is a cluster of buildings in the downtown area that are empty on the second floor.  Primary one reason why the perceived cost to be able to update them for habitation.  We are doing everything under our power to make that happen.  Before we have the full building finished, we have renters on the second floor.  One of the considerations you need is the economic value.  Setting a standard and hope the standard you have set are feasible so other people can go in and restore the second and third floor of all these buildings that seem to be setting there empty.  Mr. Cunningham stated it seems to be a domino effect that when a building is restored in such a manner as the one you are restoring right now, it enhances the economic value of the buildings that surround it and that continues to grow forward.  Took a tour of other cities and noticed instances it took someone leaving a massive estate to help renew buildings but in many instances it took someone like a developer or investor like Mr. Meeder to take a role and it did make the communities grow and it does start a domino effect.  Mr. Meeder started it is their intent to do that whole block and therefore bring up the economic value of the whole surrounding area many times.

 

New Shopping Center – 651 Coleman’s Crossing (in front of Wal-Mart) – filed by Doug Furbee for Furbee Properties II LLC

 

Mr. Furbee apologized for having to bring this back to the Board.  Mr. Cunningham stated what we already have is an approval of the building at this time.  Questioned if they should have taken this to the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Are you asking the Board to reconsider the approval for the building making the decision from last month null and void at this time for that decision at this time?  Mr. Furbee stated he is trying to come up with a building that satisfies the City of Marysville and also satisfies Buffalo Wild Wings.  Hoping to present something today that is more appealing to the Board that was what approved.  Felt it best to come back for your decision in order to get the approval that would satisfy everyone.  Thought we had approval but did not have the proper approval from Buffalo Wild Wings.  Mr. Glenn Remus stated they had staff approval for the approval from last month but it did not make it to the top senior management. They now do not feel it represents the brand image enough.  We would like to have the opportunity to tone down the color and extend it to the end of the building.  Mr. Furbee has offered suggestions about altering the building as well as signage and the things to please you.  Mr. Furbee stated he is willing to remove the monument sign from the plans.  Mr. Seymour stated the project has come before us before.  We had 5 options in signs selections, we picked one.   They brought other options to us, they stated they had the proper representation to approve the design last month.  The remaining outstanding concerns were in front of us last time.  You left without any suggestion there would be a rebuttal.  In my view, the case is closed.

 

Mr. Kraus stated even though it is on the agenda, feel discussion needs to be done for reconsideration of the previous decisions.  A motion to reconsider decision at last meeting is required.  A motion on the prevailing side and passed by the majority here.  If that motion fails, the previous decision stands.  If it passes, we go ahead with discussion.  He noted we have concentrated on Buffalo Wild Wings and not the whole building.  It might be worth reconsideration regardless of Buffalo Wild Wings to look at the building as a whole.  At this point we should consider a motion for reconsideration of the previous decision and if that passes we get into this agenda item.  If the motion fails, the motion from the previous meeting stands.  Mr. Kraus made the motion to reconsider the decision made at the last meeting relative to 651 Coleman’s Crossing filed by Doug Fee for Furbee Propeties II LLC. for further discussion.   The question put, stood:

 

Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Seymour No  Mr. Klug Yes  Mr. Kraus Yes  Mr. McVey Yes   Mr. George Yes  Mr. Draughn No

 

Motion passed to hear this agenda item.

 

Mr. Furbee stated would like to concentrate on the “sundance yellow”.  We lightened the yellow  on the rendering and also changed two colors.  Rendering shows yellow and how it ties into the building on the facade.  Changed brown to tone down EIFS yellow a bit.  Would be open to do it either way.  Mr. DeLong had mentioned consistency in future tenants. Mr. Furbee commented compared to Best Buy and their blue color there is no comparison on this building with the yellow being used.   They are trying to give their corporate image so people know what is there when they drive by.   Discussion held on the new paint colors for the building.  Mr. Furbee stated once this color is approved and they build the building with that color, the color will not change if another tenant would replace BW3’s.  Discussion held on the design and size of the sign – would the color be included in the calculation;  Mrs. McCoy stated the size of the sign is detailed on one of the sheets provided by the applicant, the buffalo in the yellow circle and the words are calculated, you do not use the color behind the sign.  Mr. Seymour stated he understands the overall site approval was decided the first time; feels only looking at the color.  Mr. Kraus stated we need to be sure we understand the building as a whole.  Mr. Furbee stated this elevation continues on beyond what is shown; it looks identical to the other elevation.  Mrs. McCoy questioned how many more units are on the front elevation; Mr. Furbee stated two or possibly three.  Mrs. McCoy asked if the sign would pass the area where their restaurant is located.  Mr. Furbee stated no, it only goes on their building unit.  In summary, “sundance” is for the corner of the building; “wild cattails” for the high parts of the northeast elevation; trim is “seashell”; “medium sand finish” is for the lower part of the northwest elevation.  “Sundance” will match the other corner of the building on the northwest side.  Southwest elevation will be same as rear of building.  EIFS 2 on the drawing will be “medium sand” and “wild cattails” for remainder of building.  Mr. Kraus stated he feels it’s important to address the entire building so there are no surprises down the line.  It was noted the zinger will remain the same at 16”.  Discussion held on the color of the tiles on the fence.  The tiles are required to be the same color as on the façade of the building – it will match the building (sundance).  It was agreed the fence could be all black or the “sundance”. 

 

Mr. Kraus made the motion to approve this agenda item with the following conditions:

 

Ø     Sundance at both ends and on signage areas

Ø     Middle elevation to be painted wild cattails

Ø     Rest of building to be painted medium sand

Ø     Trim to painted seashell

Ø     The same color combination to be used on all sides of building

Ø     Zinger to remain 16” squares

Ø     Fence to be all black or tiles painted sundance

Ø     There will be no monument sign. 

 

The question put, stood:

 

Mr. Seymour No  Mr. Klug Yes  Mr. Kraus Yes   Mr. McVey Yes   Mr. George Yes  Mr. Draughn Yes  Mr. Cunningham No

 

New 3-Unit Building – Asian Café – 601 Coleman’s Crossing Blvd. – filed by 2K General Co., 6019 Columbus Pike, Lewis Center, OH 43035

 

Mr. DeLong stated a memo was included in the packets with his comments.  After review of the parking and access drives, it was noted the driveway aisle is only 22’.  They are required to be a minimum of 25’.  Bill Morgan stated he will change the plan to reflect 25’.  He stated sidewalks will be installed along Coleman’s Crossing Blvd.  Mr. DeLong discussed the access drive off Coleman’s Crossing Blvd. Mr. Morgan stated the owner wanted this entrance only drive for better access into his property.  Mr. Kraus stated people do not use the in-only driveways the way they are intended; proof is the Applebee’s driveway and McDonalds on SR31N.  He stated this is a safety problem.  City engineer will not allow entrance to be in/out.  Mr. Morgan stated they can delete that entrance.  It was noted there is good entrance off the main entrance into Wal-Mart.  Mr. Morgan stated they are preparing the storm water management plan.  There are 2 large catch basins on-site.  It will be designed in accordance to Wal-Mart’s main storm water design. 

 

Mr. Morgan stated they want to build a large dumpster enclosure in case there is more to be stored than the main dumpster.  Mr. Cunningham requested the gate be closed to the dumpster; it is unsightly to have them hang open.  Mr. Kraus stated the chain link and slats vs. something more substantial.  Mr. Morgan stated they can go to a wood or fiberglass product.  Board members agreed fiberglass gates would be appropriate.  Mr. Klug reminded applicant the rest of the enclosure is required to match the building.  Mr. Morgan stated it would be split face block to match the building.  Mr. Morgan stated the second page of the drawings shows how the mechanicals will be seen from 100’ from the building on all 4 sides.  There is a parapet on the back of the building.  Mechanical units should be well hidden. 

 

The brick sample was discussed with it being noted it is similar to Wal-Mart’s.  The bricks are smaller because of the size of the building.  EIFS to be oyster shell, and pebble design.  The awnings will be standing seam, copper in color.  The awnings in the back will be the same.  Tried to dress the back of the building up because of visibility from Wal-Mart.  Facades are required to have no uninterrupted length in excess of 75’.  Mr. Seymour stated the square windows give the building an institutional look; would prefer rectangular window.  That would give more architectural feature to building.  Mr. DeLong suggested having windows on the side of the building also to break up the building.  Mr. Morgan stated they can do that on the restaurant side but on the other end not sure the tenants would be appropriate for windows.  Mr. DeLong stated he was referring to the restaurant side; the landscape plan shows pine trees being proposed that will help hide that plain side of the building.  Discussion held on the roof band of the building.  Mr. Morgan stated a 6” copper roof band could be added.  Mr. Kraus asked if handicap buttons would be installed on the doors.  Mr. Morgan stated maybe on the restaurant but not on the other two.  Mr. Chen stated no, it would be too expensive.  Lighting will match Doug Furbee’s property.  They had to meet airport requirements.  There will be 6 dark bronze lights, and wall pacs.

 

Mrs. McCoy reviewed the proposed signs, noting the sign shown on the north side of the building would not be permitted because it is not on the same building unit as the restaurant.

 

Landscaping was reviewed with it being noted Red Sunset Maple is the approved street tree for Coleman’s Crossing Blvd.  Ten Autumn Serviceberry trees are proposed and 8 Norway Spruce trees.  Norway Spruce trees are not shade trees.  It is ok that they be planted, but a total 17 interior trees are required; they are only showing 10 shade trees.  Mr. DeLong noted the Board approved no windows on the side of the building where the spruce trees are indicated.  If they are removed, the bare side of the building would be noticeable.  It was suggested they keep some of the spruce trees in addition to their required shade trees.  Diversity of trees was encouraged.  Mr. McVey stated he would prefer the medium size trees on the shade tree list.  Mrs. McCoy stated if the entrance drive is removed, there will be more than 25 parking spaces and a landscape area will be required to break it up.  Mr. Morgan stated there are two existing trees along the entrance drive into Wal-Mart.  Mr. DeLong requested some type of pine tree be planted to help block the dumpster even though the dumpster enclosure is made of split face block.

 

Mr. Klug made the motion to approve this agenda item with the following conditions:

 

Ø     No entrance off Coleman’s Crossing Blvd.

Ø     Landscape or pave the area where entrance is removed

Ø     Storm water retention to be approved by City Engineer

Ø     Dumpster enclosure to be made of split face block and fiberglass door

Ø     Mechanicals on roof

Ø     Awnings to be copper

Ø     Columns on back of building that are offset horizontally meet the vertical offset requirement

Ø     Rear awnings extend 3’

Ø     Windows to be more rectangular

Ø     3 additional windows on restaurant side

Ø     Roof band 6” wide copper extend out minimum 2 “

Ø     Lighting same as other lights in area – 20’, bronze

Ø     Landscaping to be corrected as stated above

Ø     Dumpster enclosure to be landscaped to soften appearance

Ø     Brick to be old school red

Ø     EIFS to be oyster shell

 

The question put, stood:

 

Mr. Klug Yes  Mr. Kraus No   Mr. McVey Yes   Mr. George Yes  Mr. Draughn Yes  Mr. Cunningham Yes   Mr. Seymour Yes

 

Mr. Kraus noted he is disappointed with no handicap buttons on doors, feel they are critical.

 

Revisions are to be made and submitted for final approval.

 

Liberty National Bank – 160 Coleman’s Crossing Blvd., - City Gate Subdivision

 

Scott Shafer stated this site is at the intersection of Lydia Drive and Coleman’s Crossing Blvd.  The entrance should not cause a problem because of the median in the middle of Coleman’s Crossing Blvd.  Storm water retention was reviewed noting there is a 3-4’ deep detention area with parking lot ponding.  There is additional storage under the parking lot. 

 

Building material was reviewed with it being noted it is mostly brick with a very traditional look.  Wanted a solid appearance.  The rotunda will be a meeting room.  The mechanicals will be screened by landscaping.    Lighting will be Greenbriar brand pole lighting consistent with others in this subdivision, dark bronze. 

 

A 50 sq. ft. monument sign is proposed with 12 sq. ft. of the sign being the actual sign, the rest is brick.  It was noted all the businesses so far along Delaware Avenue have no monument signs. 

 

 

Mrs. McCoy stated White Castle has agreed to not have a monument sign on Lydia Drive also.  The sign on the building will not be backlit. 

 

Mrs. McCoy stated that Red Sunset Maples are the approved street trees for Coleman’s Crossing and Pioneer Elm is the approved tree for Lydia Drive.  It was noted on the landscape plan that the street trees are the responsibility of the developer.  Developer is responsible for street trees if not installed by developer.

 

Mr. Kraus made the motion to approve the agenda item with the following provisions:

 

Ø     Storm water plans to be approved by City engineer

Ø     Lighting to be dark bronze poles

Ø     Landscaping responsibility of developer

Ø     Mechanicals screened by landscaping

 

The question put, stood:

 

Mr. Kraus Yes   Mr. McVey Yes   Mr. George Yes   Mr. Draughn Yes  Mr. Cunningham Yes   Mr. Seymour Yes  Mr. Klug Yes 

 

Agenda item approved with the provisions above

 

Review of Developer Covenant

 

Mrs. McCoy explained this item is to rescind an approval from the February 28, 2007, meeting that requires approval of Phil Connolly on any lot in the City Gate Subdivision before the Design Review Board reviews the request.  The Board had discussion at the March 14, 2007, meeting to rescind decision.  The Board is required to bring the item back up on the table and then take the vote to rescind requirement.  Mr. Seymour made a motion to rescind requirement for developer covenant for City Gate Subdivision; the question put, stood:

 

Mr. McVey Yes   Mr. George Yes   Mr. Draughn Yes   Mr. Cunningham Yes   Mr. Seymour Yes  Mr. Klug Yes  Mr. Kraus No

 

OLD BUSINESS:

 

Review of Parking Lot Landscape Island Tree List

 

Mr. Delong stated he removed the Callery Pear tree from the landscape island tree list.  Mr. McVey suggested adding at the bottom of each list the 10/20/30 diversity rule, giving an example of what it means.  Mr. McVey added he liked the list as presented.  Mr. Kraus made the motion to approve the lists as presented; voice vote was unanimous.

 

COMMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS:

 

Mr. Kraus stated for the BW3’s agenda item, he had meant to be more hard-nosed but he was still not sure the Board had dealt with the building in its entirety and that is why he went along with the agenda item.

 

Mr. George asked what type of penalties can be applied when they do not follow the regulations.  It was noted there is a long drawn out process with notification (there is due process) and the law director.  It takes times.  Discussion held on the agenda item on tonight’s meeting where the project had been started without proper approval.  There is a possibility future violations may not be appropriate and they would be required to remove the wrong materials.

 

ADJOURNMENT:  The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.