PLANNING
COMMISSION
DESIGN
REVIEW
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY
12, 2004
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Alan Seymour, John Cunningham, Pete
Griffin, Ken Kraus, and Don Bergwall. Bruce Limes was absent. There is one
vacancy.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mayor
The meeting was called to
order at 6:00 pm.
NEW
BUSINESS
Discussion with
Mayor
Mayor
·
Economic
development action plan being reviewed with attorneys Smith & Hale and
Bricker & Eckler
·
Establish
community authority – able to do by ordinance for any new residential and
annexation areas that will be run by a board. Will have higher property taxes for
additional funding to support new infrastructure in those new
developments
·
Industrial/commercial
development is priority
·
Residential
development doesn’t need encouragement – they are already coming because there
is a market for residential
·
Will
not be moratorium
·
Need to
treat developers with respect, trying to move projects at some reasonable pace
·
Give
developers impression we want them here and they can make profit
here
·
Do not
project hostile environment
·
Don’t
need to compromise City’s standards that have been set
·
Planning
Commission is independent board – it has a specific job to do
·
Concerned
about Shade Tree Commission – would like to combine with Planning
Commission/Design Review Board for “one stop shop”.
·
Not
sympathetic with zoning changes – should follow Union County Economic
Development Plan
Mr.
Seymour stated Commission doesn’t want to project negativity but Planning
Commission is required to follow Planning Code.
Mr.
Bergwall commented City needs a project coordinator to
help developers run through the subdivision process smoothly. Mayor responded it’s split among himself, City Engineer, Economic Developer
Eric Phillips and Zoning Inspector
A
motion was made by Mr. Kraus to amend agenda to approve Minutes of Meeting,
moving agenda items 4 and 5 to the top, then #2 and discuss tabling item
#3. Voice vote was
unanimous.
The
minutes from the meeting of April 14, 2004, were approved as
presented.
Mini-Storage Buildings –
Mr.
Montgomery reviewed plans for the mini-storage project with the following
noted:
·
Landscape
plan to be reviewed by Shade Tree Commission on May 19
·
No
curbs will be constructed
·
No
sidewalks required
·
Due to
large number of existing metal structures, this facility is keeping with the
theme of the area
·
Storm
water plan has been approved by City engineer
·
Will be
fully paved within 2 years
·
All
site work, all concrete pads to be constructed first
·
To
build two buildings first
·
Will
construct the remaining units depending on economics
·
All
steel, manufactured buildings
·
Can
change roof color to lighter than the brown
·
Lights
will be attached to buildings
·
Need to
build as economical as possible to make them marketable at the lower end of cost
spectrum
Discussion
held concerning curbs. Neighborhood
dictates no curbing being used with nature of business. Intention of ordinance is for buildings
to be harmonious with existing area.
Code 1144.10(a)(4) states “Building materials
shall be of high quality and durability, and architectural features should be
used to create visual interest and usability of the commercial or office
buildings. Building facades shall be constructed with one or more of the
following materials: solid wood, glass,
brick, stone, stucco, decorative block or contemporary
durable materials, with minimal use of vinyl, decorative aluminum or metal
siding. The use of a combination of stone, brick or stucco and wood are
encouraged. At least 40% of the facades of new commercial or office buildings should
be constructed of a decorative stone, brick or stucco material…” Discussion held concerning façade
material. Suggestion made to not
have front façade have doors and placing wood or other decorative durable
material in place of the metal on the front façade of the buildings. It was agreed that because of doors
breaking the flat surface, the building does not need any additional
uninterrupted length of any façade due to the nature of building and business
and surrounding area in which the project is located.
Mr. Kraus made a motion to
approve the design review for the mini-storage units to be located at
Ø
Material on front façade to
be in accordance with Design Review Section 1144.10(a)(4)
Ø
Paving to be completed
within two years
Ø
Shade Tree Commission to
approve landscape plan
Ø
If fence is installed at
later date, must comply with Section 1141(b) 6
Ø
Storm drainage to be
approved by City Engineer
The question put,
stood:
Mr.
Seymour Yes Mr. Cunningham
Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes
Mr. Kraus Yes Mr.
Griffin Yes
The
design review for
Sumitomo Research Facility –
16960 Square Drive. Filed by Ferguson Construction
Company
Stan
Corl discussed the future project with the following
noted:
·
New
building will tie together with existing building
·
12,462
sq. ft. structure – office use, research area for 40-50
engineers
·
Existing
sewer lines in middle of property and current setback made it necessary to buy
over two acres
·
Sumitomo
is major supplier to Honda
·
·
Landscape
plan to be reviewed by Shade Tree Commission on May 19
·
Building
material is pre-engineered material with split face concrete block masonry
features
·
To be
natural gray color with contrasting blue to match existing building across
street
·
EIFS
system is acrylic polymer based stucco material
·
Exterior
lighting will be typical exterior wall mount – 8 lights – white to match
building
·
Trash
enclosure to be cedar – 6’ high
·
Sign
will be ground mount sign that will meet all City sign
regulations
·
Sidewalks
will be installed
·
Sidewalks
and curbs to confirm to City specs
Mr.
Cunningham made a motion to approve the design for this project with the
following conditions:
·
Landscape
plan to be approved by Shade Tree Commission
The question put,
stood:
Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Bergwall Yes
Mr. Kraus Yes Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr. Seymour
Yes
The
design review for Sumitomo is approved according to the drawings received in
City offices on April 20, 2004, with the above conditions.
4-Unit
Apartment Building –
Mrs. McCoy reported the
applicant had called once again requesting this item be tabled until the next
regularly schedule design review meeting.
Discussion held by Commission members with the consensus this agenda item
is not complete or accurate due to some miscalculations on the site plan. Unclear exactly where
lot is located. Need to be
assured there is adequate parking and room for access drive. Mr. Cunningham made a motion to return
to staff to return to applicant due to incompleteness and inaccuracies of the
site plan. The question put, stood:
Mr.
Bergwall Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Seymour
Yes Mr.
Cunningham
Yes
REVIEW OF CHANGES TO
PLANNING CODE TO CORRECT CONFLICTING ORDINANCES
Mr.
Kraus suggested revising all fees in the Planning and Zoning Code to reference
the fee schedule in Chapter 1100.
Discussion
held concerning having the Design Review Board to be five members from the
Planning Commission with three needed for a quorum. Agreed to wait a few months for further
discussion in order for the Commission to get a better feel on how the Design
Review Board will progress.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at
9:00 p.m.