PLANNING
COMMISSION
DESIGN
REVIEW
MINUTES OF
MEETING OF DECEMBER 20, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Alan
Seymour, Pete Griffin, Ken Kraus and Don Bergwall. John Cunningham was excused. There are two
vacancies.
OTHERS PRESENT: Adam Weaver, David Oakes, (CESO), Randy
Anderson and
The meeting was called to order
at 6:30 pm.
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES:
The minutes of December 1, 2004
were approved as presented.
OLD BUSINESS:
Randy Anderson stated the drawings
dated 12/17/04 for Wal-Mart have been updated to reflect changes requested. Some details did not get changed yet but
will be submitted to City staff.
The shed roof was changed, added quick brick at bottom as requested. He pointed out food center vestibule has
been changed to bagel color.
Central sign element changed to stucco/EIFS.
Mr. Bergwall wanted to know size of
blue sign face area. Mr. Anderson
stated 80-85’.
Mr. Seymour stated he would like to
see the blue sign area lower with brick above the area. Mr. Anderson stated you loose some of
cornice work if that is done. Other
members stated not significant enough to request change.
Mr. Griffin stated there are four
different focal points, none the same.
Looks very good.
Mr. Kraus stated each entrance
steps down in size. This project
has come a long way since the first proposal. Stated he is ready to approve, Mr.
Griffin concurred.
Mr. Anderson stated pedestrians can
go behind or front of landscape area in middle of building – drive has been
removed.
David Oaks stated fence will be
installed around pond – will be black ornamental much like around garden center
area. Will have
sidewalk from Coleman’s
Discussion held on entrance to
property and locations of sidewalks.
Mr. Seymour suggested using a
stripe above blue area over “meat” “produce” 1-hr photo” and “optical” blue
areas to create balance. Mr. Oaks
stated they will try but not sure if will look right or can even do with the
materials involved.
Mr. Kraus stated the Design Review
Commission acknowledges effort of all parties involved. He made the motion to accept drawings
submitted dated 12/17/04 with the conditions that black ornamental fencing will
be used around pond and black ornamental fencing be used for garden center
area. Also, if feasible, desires
white line above four signs mentioned above to be schematic with rest of
building. Question put,
stood:
Mr. Bergwall Yes Mr. Griffin
Yes Mr. Seymour Yes Mr. Kraus Yes
Design review for
Mr. Oaks stated they plan on
breaking ground by February with opening date of 2005.
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion on upcoming agenda
items.
Discussion was held concerning how
revisions are made to PUD final development plan. Mrs. McCoy stated Walker Meadows would
like to submit an amendment to their PUD requesting sum of side setbacks be 20’
as opposed to 30’ as noted on their Final Plat/Final Development Plan. Commission members stated not sure their
role in such a request. Mrs. McCoy
stated according to Codified Ordinance 1145.01, they may allow reduction in lot
dimensions, yards, building setbacks and area requirements. Ordinance 1145.10 states that lot widths
may be varied to allow for a variety of structural designs. It is also recommended that setbacks be
varied. Deviation from the district
regulations is permitted according to those sections of the code. This is usually achieved at the time of
the original final Development Plan/Final Plat. However, applicant states it was an
oversight that it was not requested.
If changes made, or even if Planning Commission does not recommend
(according to Ordinance 1145.25), it is required to go back to City Council for
final approval. Final Plat needs to
be amended to reflect the correct lot numbers.
Also discussed was future proposal for “subdivision”
signs for Coleman’s Crossing. Mrs. McCoy stated the request is
required to go before the BZA also because there is
no definition for a subdivision sign; however, in the residential sections of
the sign ordinance it refers to identification signs for subdivisions and/or
multi-family. It does not refer to
such in the business section of the sign ordinance.
For these reasons, the proposed signs need a variance
from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The signs also need approval by the Design Review Board for height and
design. Your decision as the Design
Review Commission is for the design of the sign. At this time it is possible the
applicant will request a variance at the January BZA, which meets two days prior
to the regularly scheduled Design Review meeting. If the Board of Zoning Appeals grants a
variance, the Design Review Commission is still required to approve the overall
design of the signs. If the Design
Review Commission considers the request prior to BZA, a variance will still be
required for any final approval.
If Design Review Commission rejects the signs, the applicant may appeal
that decision with the BZA within 20 days of the date of decision. The role the
Design Review Commission has in reviewing new signs is as stated in Ordinance
1144.10. Commission members voiced
their concern of the overall heights of the proposed signs.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at
8:10 p.m.