DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD
JULY 13,
2005
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Alan Seymour, Ken Kraus, Don Bergwall,
Pete Griffin,
Roger Yoder, and
Paula Bodey. John Cunningham
was not present.
OTHERS
PRESENT: Sam Lewis and Clerk Barb McCoy
The
meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of June 8, 2005
were approved with the following change on Page 3
·
Rear elevation - reduce # of
roof signs to three on rear elevation, change to read:
§
Rear elevation – remove roof
lights
NEW BUSINESS:
Infinity Bar and Grill –
Sam Lewis, developer/owner, stated this
proposed restaurant is located north of the old Marysville Rental. Existing business is located at
The checklist as completed by the zoning
inspector was reviewed. Discussion
was held concerning the 24” sidewalk shown in front of building. There will be four handicap spaces in
front of building, two on each side of door. Mr. Lewis stated there will be 38”
between handicap spots. The parking
lot will be striped.
Discussion held concerning dumpster
location. Mr. Lewis stated it will
be placed on a concrete pad. There
is a 7’ asphalt drive in rear of building intended for one-way car traffic
only. Garbage truck will back into
the dumpster area from the south side of the building. Dumpster will be enclosed with wooden
privacy fence. The fence will match
fencing for patio.
Mr. Bergwall stated may want to consider
at least 8’ of pavement at back of building instead of 7’ because asphalt will
be breaking down with no curbing.
Mr. Lewis stated he would agreed to do
that.
Discussion held concerning concrete
curbing being required by code. Mr.
Lewis stated he doesn’t think that curbs are practical in this instance because
he owns 15’ of grassy area on each side of the parking lot and more than 200’ at
the rear of the parking lot. Mr.
Kraus suggested using concrete curb at entrance along the front, parallel to
Mr. Lewis stated French drains will be
used for storm water control, coming from the building draining back to the
existing storm water retention pond.
Mr. Seymour had questions about the storm water drainage. Mr. Lewis stated it will be 4” drain
tiles, French drain tile system.
There will be 6” gravel bed, you cover up, and backfill the PVC
pipes. This allows storm water to
drain to back of property. Will
schedule appointment with City Engineer to discuss how much to enlarge the
existing pond.
Building material was reviewed with the
following noted:
Metal building
Front to be light stone
Stone to be 36” to match sand stone shutters
Doors to be burgundy
6/12 pitch roof – driftwood style
36” x 36” double hung insulated windows in front, color to match
siding
Vertical ribbed metal siding
Mr. Lewis explained if vinyl siding is
used he would have to have footers would more than double his construction
costs. It will be on concrete slab
with no footers need.
Discussion held concerning the type of
shingles. 35 year dimensional
shingles are preferred for the appearance and durability. Mr. Lewis stated he would agree to 35
year dimensional shingles. Mr.
Kraus stated considering it is next to the old Marysville Rental metal siding,
this metal is not so bad.
Mr. Seymour stated he is concerned about
setting precedent.
Discussion held concerning not having 40%
façade being of natural material.
It was noted that in the code it states “should”. Mr. Kraus suggested carrying the stone
down both sides but not the rear.
Also suggested were using two colors for the metal siding. Mr. Bergwall stated on commercial
buildings it is easy to damage the siding of a building. That is one reason why stone or brick
should be used – to protect the building.
Mr. Seymour stated he prefers to take the
front appearance and wrap it 20’ down both sides. Would like to know why applicant does
not use EIFS material. Encourages
using EIFS.
Mr. Yoder stated he does not want
remaining lots to be developed using same standards as what is located there
now. Mr. Kraus stated the code says
“should”. If deviate from that,
board should state why not making them does that.
Mr. Lewis stated he simply cannot afford
certain things. Would not be able to construct
building.
Mr. Bergwall asked what other way the
building can be constructed by not having footers. Mr. Lewis said metal siding is the only
way.
Discussion held concerning down lit
lighting being required. Mr. Lewis
stated the pac lights would are pointed toward the
ground/parking lot area.
Mrs. McCoy noted phone numbers are not
permitted on a freestanding identification sign.
Several suggestions were made to enhance
the appearance of the structure, including only using 24” of stone with stone
pillars on corner and a stone pillar in middle of both side walls. Mr. Kraus suggested reducing height of
stone to 24”, taking down the sides of building for half the distance of the
length – 32’.
Mr. Kraus made the motion to approve the
building with the following conditions:
Ø
Minimum 24” stone in front of building
extending 32’ along the sides of building
Ø
4
handicap spaces to be on each side of front door with 38” space between
each
Ø
Concrete curb parallel with
Ø
Concrete curb for interior landscaping in
front of lot
Ø
Site
drainage to be approved by City engineer
Ø
35
year dimensional shingles to be used
Ø
Dumpster to be enclosed on four
sides
Question put, stood:
Mr. Seymour No Mr. Yoder Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Griffin No Mrs. Bodey Yes
Approved. Revisions to building
to be resubmitted for approval.
Mrs. Bodey stated she is pleased this
building is better than surrounding buildings. She is not hung up on 40% façade;
however, suggested windows could be longer. Because of flavor of steel sided
building, this building looks better.
Mr. Seymour stated he is still concerned
about setting a precedent for remaining lots. He opposes the 40% facade issue and
opposes the vertical siding.
Mr. Griffin stated he is concerned about
making this affordable – does not like to let build less than standards because
financially small businesses cannot afford to build per the code.
Mr. Kraus stated if word “shall” was used
instead of “should” it would be different.
Location means a lot also; community is made up of little
communities. The applicant did
agree to compromise to what he could.
Precedent will only be set if the Board LETS it be
set.
Mr. Bergwall stated he agrees with Mr.
Griffin. He did not agree to
approve because it was suitable enough for that area. This location is different than the
Movie Gallery location. Not just
materials being used but also location.
Also reluctant around parking lot beyond fact it is saving him
money.
Mrs. Bodey stated she is sensitive to
local small businesses. Feels the
board met the intent of code because of location. This location is not like Movie Gallery,
which is a gateway into the City.
This site is very industrial area with a railroad behind
it.
Mr. Yoder stated “should” not “shall”
intent is why he voted yes. The
intent is 40%, however, less than 40% is appropriate at
this location. Fearful trying to establish lower standards because of
location.
Mr. Bergwall stated we want to continue
monitoring. The City is in
transitional stage. May want to
consider revising any section of the code Board thinks should be changed. How do you get to the “vision” of the
code.
Mr. Kraus stated according to Codified
Ordinance 1123.01(a)(4)(3)… “Shall” is a mandatory requirement, “may”
is a permissive requirement, and “should” is a preferred requirement…” Feels the Board made progress
tonight.
Mr. Kraus stated perhaps too
much time is spent discussing issues for which this Board is not
responsible. If engineering issue,
move on.
ADJOURNMENT:
Mr.
Seymour adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.