DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
AUGUST 8,
2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: John
Cunningham, George McVey, Alan Seymour, Ken Kraus and Dave Klug. Scott Draughn and Larry George were excused.
OTHERS PRESENT: Dan
Miller, Karen Page, Ed Willman, Scott Murray, Aaron Greene, Jeff Bellinski and City Planner (Acting Clerk) Greg
DeLong
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes from the meeting
of July 11, 2007, were approved with the following change:
Page 1 –
under 225 E. 5th Street – change “with” to “be in compliance…”
NEW BUSINESS:
New
Dan Miller, DDP & Associates,
stated this project will be a two building office space with 5 tenant spaces in
each building. They proposed building
the east building first with the west building being built at a later
date. The buildings will be facing each
other with a parking lot in between.
Design will help keep the car lights in the parking lot. Office use will be a soft transition to the
residential district. There will be a
vinyl fence between the residential uses to the east for buffering. Air conditioning units will be placed on the
back of the buildings. Hardi plank is
proposed for the building. They are
working with Page Engineering on design of the storm water. It will be designed to be contained in the
parking lot with catch basins. Pillars
with brick at the bottom of each will be used on the back of the buildings.
Mr. Klug stated the dumpster is
located in the middle of the site. It
seems no one ever closes the gates on the dumpsters. It is important to have gates and to have the
gates be closed.
Mr. Miller stated they could try to
tilt the location of the dumpster so it is not facing directly onto
Mr. Kraus stated perhaps not
requiring curbing at the rear of the property for the ease of the trucks for
trash removal might make sense.
City Planner Greg Delong stated
there seems to be an inconsistency on the landscaping plan and the development
plan. There are 9 Arborvitae shown on
the drawing – 10 listed in the index. 4
Sentinel Crab trees on drawing – 2 listed in the index. Also, all the plants need to be labeled on
the drawing.
Mr. Miller stated the shingles will
be charcoal. Mr. DeLong stated the
drawings show the main front window gable is reddish while the rest of the roof
is grey.
Mr. Seymour asked if the landscape
areas will be curbed. Mr. Miller stated
yes, that is the intent. The roof pitch
looks pretty shallow. In past projects
we encouraged 6/12 be the minimum. Mr.
Miller stated that would be fine. Mr.
Miller stated there is a standing seam metal roof above the gable elements and
above the entrances.
Mr. Klug questioned where the
tenant’s signage would be permitted. Mr.
Seymour stated if all the sign boards are the same size it looks better. This way, each tenant can use their own logo,
etc. Standardized sign boards look
better. Mr. Kraus stated in B-R the size
of the monument sign is 5’ in height 12 sq. ft. in size. Mr. DeLong stated it is considered a
multi-tenant sign and would be permitted according to the sign ordinance. Mr. Kraus discussed the rear of the building
where there is no lights. This could be
a haven for kids and problems. He asked
if lights could be installed to deter this potential problem. Mr. Miller stated a couple pac lights could
be added. Mr. Seymour stated a nice job
was done on the dumpster enclosure.
Mr. Klug made the motion to approve
this agenda item with the following conditions:
· Verification of rear pillars to
project about 8” which breaks up rear façade
· Dumpster enclosure will be hardi
plank
· Move dumpster enclosure back to the
direction behind north end of the west building as preferred option or at least
pivoted somewhat so that the front is not so visible from the road
· Landscaping needs to be cleaned up
so plans conform to requirements of landscape ordinance
· Business signs will be above front
doors
· Roof pitch will be changed to 6/12
· Rear column colors as well as front
columns will match the gutter trims that will be brought down
· 2 or 3 light packs placed low on
the rear of the east building between building and fence to light that area
· Building materials and final
elevations to match
· All materials to be labeled
properly
· Make sure elevations are labeled
accurately, including calling out the brick cap on the brick
The question put, stood:
Mr. Klug Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr.
Seymour Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. McVey Yes
Plans to be revised and resubmitted
for final approval by Zoning Inspector.
Renovation and new canopy - Smart Oil, LLC –
Scott Murray, president of Smart
Oil, stated what they have now are above ground tanks and gas pumps off to the
side. What they are proposing is to put
the above ground storage tanks underground.
Will move the gas pumps behind the building with a card lock system with
a canopy. They will be able to do away
with the current pumps. The underground
storage tanks have been approved by the State of
Mr. Kraus stated he has noted
standing water on this property at times.
Mr. Murray stated that will be addressed when the renovations are
done.
Mr. Klug asked if this lot would be
paved in the future. Mr. Murray stated
he would like to do that in the future, after this project is finished. Landscaping will be done at this time,
however.
Mr. Kraus if the dumpster would be
enclosed. Mr. Murray stated right now it
is 3-sided but can put a vinyl gate on it.
Mr. DeLong stated that signs will
be required to be in accordance with the sign ordinance. Barb will need to know the existing signage
in order to calculate what size the new signs will be.
Mr. Kraus made the motion to
approve this agenda item as submitted with the understanding that the new
dumpster will be enclosed with vinyl material.
The question put, stood:
Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Seymour Yes
Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. McVey Yes Mr. Klug Yes
New
Jeff
Bellinski representing HPLEX III, LLC, stated they are proposing to develop a
10,000 sq. ft. medical hospital for
Discussion
was held on sidewalks not being required on S.R. 31 but should be required on
Mill Road Blvd.
Mr.
Bellinksi stated they are using a combination of synthetic stone – EIFS around
the windows,
Mr.
Seymour asked why this 1960’s style architecture was chosen as opposed to other
buildings and houses built in this area.
Mr. Bellinksi stated they are trying to keep the building fairly low,
now sure this is 1960’s style at all.
Mr. Seymour stated a steeper roof pitch would be nice. The trim is a little simple, would prefer
more fancy design. Mr. Bellinski stated
wanted to make it as fancy as possible with keeping in the neighborhood but
have to understand there is a higher cost to that. Believe it blends very well. Mr. Kraus stated he feels this blend is not
so bad. There are all types of
architecture out there and this is not a bad design for the area.
Lighting
will be bronze, downlit lighting.
It was
noted the freestanding sign does not meet the sign regulations. Mr. Bellinski stated they will make the size
and height conform to the code. The two
signs on the building will be used also.
Mr. DeLong stated Barb has told him the two walls signs are in
compliance.
Mr. Kraus
asked if handicap buttons will be installed; Mr. Bellinski stated yes.
Mr.
DeLong asked what the new curb cut will do to the parking lot. Mr. Bellinski stated it may take up a couple
parking spaces but they are still ok with number required.
The
landscape plan was reviewed with it being noted that 7 perimeter trees are
required but the plan only shows 5. Two
perimeter trees are required to be added to the landscape plan.
Mr. Klug made the motion to approve
this agenda item with the following conditions:
· Entrance
moved as far west as possible on
· Add left
turn lane west bound on
· Mechanicals
to be ground mounted with west side screened with landscaping and on south side
with vinyl fence
· EIFS
around windows will be two colors (off white and tan) to match/compliment the
stone
· Dumpster
to be enclosed with stone with vinyl gate or door
· Ground
sign to be in compliance with sign ordinance
· Landscaping
to be changed to reflect two extra trees required
The question put, stood:
Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Seymour No
Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. McVey Yes Mr. Klug Yes
Revised plans required to be
submitted for final approval by the Zoning Inspector.
Discussion – 125 N. Main
Street – Color Choice of Building that was approved by Fast Track
Mr. Delong explained Barb had fast
tracked this application and it was not painted the way they said it would be
painted. They stated the painters
painted the entire pole when they should have painted them white with a purple
base. She wanted to verify with the
Board if the colors were ok, should they go before the Design Review Board or
have them change it. Mr. Cunningham
stated he was approached by another church in town that had to come before the
Board when they painted their doors green and they felt it was unfair for this
color to be used. Mr. Kraus stated he
feels the bottom line is if they did not do what was approve and we make an
exception now, we open up the door to something we don’t want to open it
to. They should comply to what was
approved or they pay the fees to come in like everybody else. Mr. Cunningham stated they already are
requiring commercial owners to come in when it is required.
Mr. Seymour stated the Fast
Track ordinance 1136.09(a) (3) reads: “Painting
of structures and signs as long as the painting does not involve any structural
modification and the paint color selection complies with the design and color
guidelines established by the Board...” and color guidelines do not exist so he
feels they meet the fast track criteria.
This is a maintenance item and we don’t want approval for paint to come
before the Board. Don’t feel they should
have to pay $250 to come before us.
Colors will continue to be a controversy.
Mr. Kraus stated the church with the green door did
not have the option for the fast track.
Under existing rules it could be approved by Barb and the Board would
not have seen it. Mr. Seymour stated
that is what the Board prefers. Mr.
Kraus stated the rules changed after one church and the one we’re dealing with
now. Mr. Klug stated if that is the
case, you have to get Barb what color is right or wrong without using her own
personal opinion. Mr. Cunningham stated
that Greg commented that the church was told as long as it was the same color
it was fine but they painted more of the building (the pillars) than they were
suppose to paint.
Discussion held on the color range the Board is
willing to accept. Mr. Seymour stated you should give applicants a choice from
this point to point, a range of colors that would be acceptable. If you leave it up in the air that any color
from here to there is acceptable, it leaves it wide open. Mr. Klug agreed to bring in a chart of colors
so the Board can go through and sort out groups of colors that are appropriate. Mr. DeLong stated the speaker next month may
be able to advise the Board on what direction to go.
Mr. Kraus stated a memo addressing the change made to
the building color by the applicant for the church and modifying the
application will make this fast track item legal and clean. The Board agrees Barb needs some broad
guidance on colors and if there are exceptions to the colors and if people want
to do something different, they will be required to come to the Design Review
Board and pay the appropriate fee to do so.
Suggest not bringing the colors in until October meeting in order to be
able to meet with the guest speaker.
Mr. DeLong asked if the meeting next month could start
at 6:00 p.m. because of the possibility of having a big agenda item next
month. Members stated that would be all
right.
COMMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Mr. Cunningham asked if the building next to Best Buy
is adhering to the Design Review’s approval.
Mr. DeLong stated he would check with Barb.
Mr. Kraus stated he would like to see an expiration
date in the ordinance for approvals.
ADJOURNMENT: The
meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.