PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ken
Kraus, Pete Griffin, Don Bergwall, Alan Seymour, John Cunningham-absent – two
vacancies
OTHERS PRESENT:
Kevin Gregory, Randy Anderson and
CALL TO ORDER:
Alan Seymour called the meeting to order at 6:35
p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 10, 2004
Mr.
Griffin made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Voice vote was
unanimous.
ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS:
None
OLD BUSINESS:
Randy Anderson with BRR Architects stated this building
has many bump outs and recesses.
Mr. Anderson stated last time the commission did not like the white
color, so they put a white coping on the top to accent the top and corners and
added quick brick where the lighter color was.
Mr.
Seymour asked Mr. Anderson if he had information on what was approved by Shade
Tree. Mr. Anderson stated he was
not at the meeting. He showed the
commission what the landscaping looked like along the front of the
building.
Discussion held regarding the “loading
lane”.
Mr.
Anderson explained that the landscape mound with the trees would be between the
“loading lane” and the fire lane.
Mr. Griffin stated his understanding was there was going to be a
landscaped area along the building under the Wal*Mart sign. Mr. Anderson stated they were going to
look at that option and see how it would fit in. Mr. Griffin stated he does not
understand the need for the “loading lane”. Mr. Anderson stated it is for the
convenience of the customer and to keep traffic from stopping in the main lane
and creating a backup.
Mr.
Bergwall stated the drawing is incorrect.
The planting area does not overlap the offsets according to the landscape
plan. That is why we thought the
planting extended all the way to the building. Eventually, we thought the trees next to
the building would grow high enough to break up some of the expansiveness of the
wall and sign. Since the landscape
area is not near the wall that will not happen.
Mr.
Bergwall asked what was going to be done to protect the corners of the
buildings. Mr. Anderson stated
there would be ballards, concrete
post.
Mr.
Bergwall asked where the loading area was for the garden center was
located. Mr. Anderson stated there
is no loading area for customers; they would push their merchandise to their
car.
Mr.
Seymour stated for the record, the plan they received does not match what was
approved by Shade Tree.
Mr.
Seymour asked Mr. Anderson to discuss the changes they made since the last
meeting. Mr. Anderson stated all of
the planters are raised planters.
We added decorative molding to the top of the building. The commission did not like the white
hyacinth color of the vestibules, so we darkened them up to “bagel”. The only white hyacinth color left is on
the coping, trim, to provide an accent.
The most obvious thing is the change in the materials. The quick brick is in two primary
colors, promenade blend and earth tone blend.
Mr.
Kraus stated the only place EIFS remains not counting the main entrances are
above the blue product signs? Mr.
Anderson stated yes and also below in the panels below some signs.
Mr.
Bergwall stated last time you stated you were going to get rid of all of the smooth block. Yet it is retained over a large
area. Mr. Anderson stated if the
commission wants it to be split-face it can be. Initially, we thought there would be an
issue with hanging the signs on split-face, but there is not. Mr. Bergwall stated the commission is
asking for the blue in the signage to be changed to split-face from smooth.
Mr.
Bergwall stated low on the entrances there will be split-face block that is
going to be painted and the durability of the painted surface is not good. It will be hit by feet and carts and get
scratched and nicked.
Mr.
Anderson stated before we started to build this product, they kept the EIFS 8-10
feet above the ground for the reasons just said. For whatever reason they have changed
their mind and it is now only about 4 feet above ground. Mr. Bergwall stated with the quick brick
if it gets nicked or scratched, it is not going to be noticeable like the
painted block, especially in the dark color. Mr. Anderson stated there is no question
that this will be more of a maintenance issue.
Mr.
Seymour stated there has been some color changes and brick added, but the
character of the building has not changed and that is disappointing. When we reviewed this before we were
hoping you would take our preferences and completed additional designing. Mr. Anderson stated he must have missed
those points.
Mr.
Seymour stated they made reference to the store in
Mr.
Anderson stated they have the ordinance and the commission’s comments. A lot of the things you liked about the
Mr.
Anderson stated they put 40% quick brick on the front for the change in
material. There was a concern about
the central sign and I thought the consensus was with the landscaping in the
front would provide some relief. It
is disappointing that the trees are not bigger. I was hoping they would provide a little
more height.
Mr.
Seymour stated what they were looking for was softer advertising. The main sign and the bagel colored area
is a bold advertising area. We were
hoping there would be a background behind the “always” signs. There is no change in the
billboard.
Mr.
Anderson stated the signage shown is not approved. We know we have more signage than is
allowed and we will have to scale back.
Mr.
Bergwall stated without even looking at the signage, on the entranceways, if you
take away the blue arch and replace it with brick, it would have a totally
different look.
Mr.
Griffin asked if there was a reason the brick on the bottom below the meat sign
could not be extended to underneath the blue archway? Mr.
Anderson stated the code calls for 40% of premium material and that has been
provided, it is just a matter of where you place it.
Mr.
Seymour stated his biggest point is architecture. We are looking for something with less
of the standard look. We want to
get rid of the billboard look, add a peak to the left entrance to blend in with
the rest of the building. Mr.
Anderson stated at the last discussion he asked if they wanted a peak on that
entrance and he thought the consensus was no because they wanted the
variation.
Mr.
Seymour stated to take away from the signs; they could have a white background
with a darker color surrounding.
Mr.
Kraus stated the commission understands they want their signs to show, however,
the material they are using is unattractive. In the central sign area, it would look
less like a billboard if the blue background were less. If you continued the brick up the sides
to the roofline, in conjunction with the trees below it would really break it
up. The large panel look above the
entrances takes away from the other detail you have added. I would like to see the light area
behind the “always” signs a little less and the big panels gone.
Mr.
Bergwall stated there is a lot of premium material on the building but they are
in areas that people are not going to appreciate.
Mr.
Bergwall asked if they always used EIFS around the entryways? Mr.
Anderson stated yes.
Mr.
Anderson stated the code calls for 40% of the building to be brick but he did
not know anywhere in the ordinance it stated where if had to be on the
building. We tried to spread it
over the front of the building to create balance.
Mr.
Seymour read statements from the last meetings minutes. The building still has a traditional
Wal*Mart look, there is a concern about the use of EFIS, need additional hip
roofs, don’t want warehouse look in the middle of the building.
Mr.
Kraus asked if the roofline over “food center” was a hip roof, but different
from the others, and the earth blend columns on either
side of the blue went up to the roofline, like columns, would it work? It would make the bagel colored area the
sign is on smaller.
Mr.
Anderson stated he would have to check with the client.
Mr.
Kraus stated he would prefer for the roofline of the food center be a peak roof
similar to the one over the general merchandise but not identical. Extend the earth tone quick brick up
each side of the doors as columns to the roofline. Also try to get away from the panel look
behind the signs.
Mr.
Bergwall asked if he was the only one that did not like the blue horseshoe? Mr.
Seymour agreed. Mr. Anderson asked
what it was he didn’t like, the material or the
color? Mr. Bergwall stated if it
was blue glazed tile with white joints that would be ok.
Mr.
Griffin stated if you would extend the earth tone blend quick brick that is
going around the base of the rest of the building it would be durable material.
Mr.
Kraus asked if there could be less blue with the central sign? Mr.
Anderson stated he would have to ask.
Discussion as to when Mr. Anderson could have the
changes resubmitted.
Mr.
Kraus stated they would also need clarification on the material around the
pond. The last meeting it was said
that it would probably be certain material, but we need to have a definite
answer.
Mr.
Bergwall asked what is going to be along the backside of the building? Mr.
Kraus stated it backs up to the railroad and it will have tree lined
landscaping.
Mr.
Seymour asked what are the backside of the front peaks
going to have on them? Mr. Anderson
stated it would probably be covered with EFIS. Mr. Seymour stated he would like to have
a clarification on that by the next meeting.
Mr.
Seymour stated the Wal*Mart sign will still look like a billboard even with the
brick columns. Mr. Seymour asked
Mr. Anderson if they could come back with a couple of options for that sign? Mr.
Anderson stated he would check with them.
Mr.
Bergwall asked what the size of the center section of the building is? Mr. Anderson
stated he wasn’t sure. Mr. Bergwall
stated if it is more than 100’ then per code there is to be some deviation in
the façade.
Commission agreed to have a special meeting for the
Wal*
ADJOURNMENT:
Mr.
Seymour adjourned the meeting.