DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD
MAY 11,
2005
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Alan Seymour, Ken Kraus, Don Bergwall,
John Cunningham, Pete Griffin and Roger Yoder. Paula Bodey was
excused.
OTHERS
PRESENT: Doug Bruce, Jim Elliott, Steve Kelly, Justin Jehn
(representing Bear Creek Capital), Alan Boerger, Jonathan Shanes, John Crooks
(representing Doppco, Inc.) and Clerk Barb McCoy
The
meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of April 13, 2005 were
approved with the following corrections:
Page 2 – change MODE to MADE in first line of old
business
Page 5 – change IFS to EIFS in 5th
paragraph
OLD BUSINESS:
Holbrook & Manter -
Revised Design Review
-
Mr. Kraus made the motion to ratify
actions taken at the special planning commission meeting of April 21, 2005. Mr.
Kraus made the motion to approve the revised drawings for Holbrook Manter
located at
Mr.
Kraus Yes
Mr. Griffin Yes Mr.
Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes
NEW BUSINESS:
John Crooks, architect for the project,
stated the existing building will be razed and the whole site will be
redeveloped.
Mr. Kraus stated he has a concern with the
location of the right in/right out feature being too close to the Delaware
Avenue/Coleman’s
Mr. Griffin stated he feels there is a
safety issue. Would like to see the
building flip flopped in order to put drive away from the intersection
more. Feels they should look at
alternatives.
Mr. Crooks stated they do not want to move
building forward because they need the front parking for retail
businesses.
Mr. Kraus asked if they could move
right-in/right out south about 40’ and add island to force people to turn south
and not north.
Mr. Bergwall stated he has concern because
of two turn lanes that could potential cause problems.
Alan Boerger, developer for this project,
stated they can move it down because the drive thru will not be located there
now. Stated he feels the right
in/right out feature is a benefit to area.
Mr. Seymour and Mr. Griffin suggested
turning the building 90o.
Mr. Boerger stated all the clients want to face
Mr. Boerger stated for the vacation of
Mr. Kraus stated he would rather see left
turn signal going westbound on
Mr. Cunningham stated the sidewalk should
extend to
It was noted the entire parking lot will
be curbed. Storm water design is
being engineered. Will consist of
ponding in parking lot or whatever is required by the
City.
After reviewing the building, it was noted
there is not enough projections for the long expanses in the center portion of
the building. Suggestions made by
board members to add brick along bottom row of glass or add a row of bricks on
each side of columns. Also
suggested was adding row of brick along the top or change the color of EIFS for
a small strip along the top of the windows.
The east and west elevations were reviewed
and were in compliance.
The south elevation was reviewed with it
being noted the building is 170’ wide with no breaks. Mr. Crooks noted there will be mounding
and landscaping along the back of the property that will help screen the
building. It was noted that the
ordinance requires breaks in the building when over 100’ in length. Mr. Kraus suggested installing two
columns like the front for the break that is required. Mr. Seymour suggested bringing the
restaurant color around the back side for the 60’ to match the front of the
building.
Discussion held on dumpsters being
required to be enclosed on 3 sides and the material should match the
building.
Exterior lighting was reviewed – 5’ poles
with soft lighting.
Mr. Kraus made the motion to approve the
building with the following conditions:
Ø
Move
right in/right out entrance feature south
Ø
Exaggerate island for right in/right out
entrance feature
Ø
Talk
to City concerning installing left turn signal instead of adding
lane
Ø
Extend sidewalk west to
Ø
Talk
to engineer about running curb all the way to
Ø
On-site storm water
detention
Ø
Row
of same color to match brick above store front
Ø
Two
(2) planters in front of columns in front of building
Ø
On
south side of building continue wall to match restaurant for 60’ and balance
remaining wall with columns like on front of building
Question put, stood:
Mr.
Kraus Yes
Mr. Griffin Yes Mr.
Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes
Elevation
drawings to be revised and submitted to City for review for
compliance
Steve
Kelly, Bear Creek Capital, reviewed this project stating the buildings were
required to be separated because of a sanitary sewer line running through the
site. It will be 85,000 sq. ft.
retail center slated to open in April 2006. The storm water detention will be
provided regionally – will drain into detention pond next to
Honda.
Mr.
Kelly stated they tried to break up building with columns with stone base with
brick. They continued design on
south side of building. Will be
split face CMU, back of building mixture of split face block and smooth face
block. Mr. Kelly stated
they tried to break up buildings with different heights along the building. Has a stone base with brick, glass
windows and EIFS at top. A column
design is along the front of the building.
Portions of the building actually stick out and extend farther back. Feels the building follows the intent of
the design review code.
Mr.
Seymour asked if the columns stick out or are they flush with the building. Mr. Kelly stated flush with the
building.
Justin
Jehn, K-4 Architecture, stated wanted to give the appearance of the columns not
being flush. The brick does stand
out a little, but at the top it is flush because of the appearance of the sign
band.
Mr.
Griffin stated this building has very nice features with the columns but they do
not pop out enough to satisfy the ordinance. Not enough articulation across the front
of the building. 4” is not enough
according to our ordinance. Need to
have more distance from the face of the building coming out a little bit. In keeping with our code we must have 3%
on any building in excess of 100’. Not enough difference in the
depths.
Mr.
Kelly explained with the full picture of the buildings, it does meet the
code. Took the whole width of the
building and took 3% and it does meet the code.
Mr.
Bergwall explained that the 3% is not the width and 3%, it is intended to mean
no building can be 100’ in width without a break. Because of the railroad, the storage
facility behind the building and all the landscaping proposed, the backside of
the building would be adequate.
Mr.
Griffin stated he does not think the columns pop out enough to satisfy
requirement. 4” is not enough. Need more distance with the columns
coming out more. The code requires
3%.
Mr.
Jehn stated the intent was to group the massing. The intent is to have a “large box” on
both sides of the building with smaller stores in between. The columns do only
bump out 4”.
Mr.
Seymour stated there are a lot of windows on the Floor Plan B building. Mr. Kelly stated retail warrants more
windows. Tenants want a lot of
visibility. They utilize the
windows for displaying their merchandise.
Cannot put brick at the bottom because the retail spacing may change
periodically, need the spaces to be flexible in order to change size of units by
changing placement of the entrance doors. With placing brick at the bottom it
would be difficult to match in the future.
Mr.
Bergwall stated what you see now are large windows. Once spaces are occupied, the windows
are filled with merchandise and temporary signage.
Mr.
Seymour stated he could see taking both ends with a color band across to connect
all the columns on both sides to add color. Mr. Jehn stated you could take the
darker color with the EIFS material to match the brick.
Mr.
Kelly stated signage will be channel letters with size to be accordance with the
sign ordinance. He also stated the
signage will help break up the building.
Mr.
Kraus stated the building has the look.
Now we have to match the look with the code.
Mr.
Griffin commented that the planting section of the landscaping drawings is not
in good practice for planting trees in this area. Mr. Kelly stated he will note that at
the Shade Tree Commission meeting next week.
Doug
Bruce with Bear Creek Capital reviewed the exterior lighting and proposed
signage. He stated the columns can
be set 8” out from the glass and another 4” up to the coping on top.
Mr. Kraus made the motion to approve the
building with the following conditions:
Ø
Any
continuous 100’ facade be broken up with emphasis on the
columns
Ø
End
unit of each building between columns be tied together with a color
band
Question put, stood:
Mr.
Griffin Yes
Mr. Seymour Yes Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
Elevation
drawings to be revised and submitted to City for review for
compliance
ADJOURNMENT:
Mr.
Seymour adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.