PLANNING
COMMISSION
DESIGN
REVIEW
MEMBERS
PRESENT: John Cunningham, Pete Griffin, Ken Kraus
and Don Bergwall. There are two
vacancies.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Sam Jeffers (Honda Lock), Blade Hauth (Takenaka Corporation), Joey
Osborn (
The meeting was called to
order at 6:30 pm.
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES:
The minutes of September 8,
2004, were approved as presented.
NEW
BUSINESS
Honda
Lock. Filed by Takenaka Corporation. To be located at 16721
Square Drive.
Blade
Hauth reviewed the proposed building with the
following noted:
Ø
6,000
sq. ft, 1 story steel frame building
Ø
White
metal siding with white trim and blue glass
Ø
Will be
used for sales office with some research and development
Ø
Building
to be corrugated siding with vertical metal siding being flat, inter-locking
panels
Ø
Flat
roofed canopy, clad in metal over main entrance
Ø
Will
also be canopy on south side for employee entrance
Ø
Stand
out feature will be blue glazed windows
Ø
All
roof top units located toward the back of building. Will not be able to see from Square
Drive
Ø
Garage
door needed to get cars in for research and development.
The
Commission reviewed the checklist.
It was noted that concrete curbing is not required because the property
is zoned M-2. However,
aesthetically would look nice since this is an office space as opposed to a
manufacturing plant or warehouse facility.
Would also better serve drainage to have curbing at
least in the front part of the parking lot. Mr. Kraus stated handicap spaces should
be moved to main entrance for easier access for anyone in a wheelchair or with
special needs. Sidewalks not shown on site plan. Mr. Hauth
stated a new site plan shows City sidewalks. Because this is an office, the ordinance
requires facades greater than 100’ in length have recesses having a depth of at
least 3% of the length of the façade and extending at least 20% of the length of
the facade. The canopy over the
entrance can serve this requirement since the building is 103’ wide. When the building is
expanded to the north, will require a recess at least
20%.
Item #
23 and 24
– Because front façade is over 50% glass and the architectural
style of the metal materials being
a higher grade making it very durable, it does meet the intent of the code. The vertical panels break up the
façade.
Commission
members concurred the building color matches
neighboring facilities. White hues
are being used with blue windows.
The
applicant has not discussed exterior lighting. Will use lights around
flagpoles. Canopies will be
lit underneath. Will use down lit
lighting if any is installed in the parking lot. Code 1141.07 requires lights to reflect
the light away from adjoining property.
Trash
enclosure has yet to be determined.
If outside storage is used, it will be enclosed as required by Code. Signs will be submitted for approval by
the zoning inspector.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to approve the building for Honda Lock with the following
conditions:
Ø
1
handicap parking space to be located in front
Ø
Curbing
in all of front and to include handicap spaces on the side of
building
Ø
East
elevation to use corrugated panels vertically
Ø
Future
expansion will be required to have the facade recessed
Ø
Because
of glass being used, meets intent of ordinance
Ø
Trash
enclosure required if outside dumpster
Ø
Any
lighting to be down lit
Ø
No need
for storm water detention on site
The
question put, stood
Mr.
Bergwall Yes Mr. Griffin Yes Mr. Cunningham Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
Design
review for Honda Lock approved with above conditions.
Joey
Osborn stated the units will be 3/12 roof pitch with the sidewalls and roof to
be clay (taupe or tan) color. Along eaves and gutters and doors to be maroon.
It was
noted by
Mr.
Bergwall has concerns about the two detention basins
seen from the street in the front.
Suggestion made to create interest point with fencing and shrubs or
bushes around the backside of the ponds – not to hide the units but to take your
attention away from the units.
Suggestion
made to use a higher door in the middle storage unit.
Checklist
was reviewed with the following noted:
Ø
Exterior
lights will be security lighting, down lit, on poles in corners of
lot
Ø
Any
signage to be approved by zoning inspector
Ø
Storm
water plan to be approved by City Engineer
Mr.
Bergwall made a motion to approve the building for
Millcreek Storage Units with the following
conditions:
Ø
Front
façade of front unit to have middle door be at least one foot higher
Ø
Detention
ponds in front to have landscaping and fencing to enhance but not hide
building
Ø
Add
cupola in the same accent color of doors on each unit
Ø
Review
storm water because of concern of water getting in units
Ø
Outdoor
lighting to be directional
The
question put, stood:
Mr.
Griffin Yes Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall
Design
review for Millcreek Self-Storage approved with the
above conditions.
Because
of the future units to be constructed, discussion held on approving the
remaining units # 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 with the same conditions so they won’t
have to come back before the Design Review Board.
Mr.
Kraus made a motion to include units #4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the approval with
the same conditions. The question
put, stood:
Mr.
Cunningham Yes Mr. Kraus Yes Mr. Bergwall
Yes Mr. Griffin
Yes
MISCELLENEOUS
Discussion
held concerning e-mail received from Eric Phillips about a potential video store
being constructed at the old BP station at the corner of 5th &
Walnut. Mr. Phillips feels the
design review board should consider the location is only a block away from the
downtown architectural district and should be constructed to reflect the
architectural feel of the area.
Members not sure they would have the power to require the architectural
guidelines because it is not in the architectural review district. The Architectural Review ordinance does
not have specific guidelines to follow even in their
district.
Mrs.
McCoy stated Super Wal-Mart plans on submitting for next month’s meeting and the
preliminary drawings may not meet the design review requirements.
Discussion
held concerning changing the ordinance to require nine (9) working days deadline
as opposed to 15 working days. This
could help some applicants not have to wait so long. It still allows time for staff to review
and get packets ready for distribution.
Motion made by Mr. Cunningham to move this item to the regular Planning
Commission meeting; voice vote was unanimous. Rules of procedure for design review to
be reviewed at next month’s design review meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at
8:30 p.m.