DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, June 14, 2017, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, 209 S. Main Street, 2 nd Floor

Transcription

1 City Hall, 209 S. Main Street Marysville, Ohio (937) FAX (937) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, June 14, 2017, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, 209 S. Main Street, 2 nd Floor CALL MEETING TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: Time In: Scot Draughn Pete Griffin Tim Schacht Brett Garrett Virginia Golan Ed Mickelson Melissa Marino APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 10, 2017 Meeting Minutes Motion By: Vote: CITIZEN COMMENTS: ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS: OLD BUSINESS: Item 1: Certificate of Appropriateness: An application for building modifications (roof replacement) at 214 South Court Street (Eufinger Law Office) in the O R (Office Residential District) zoning district. Motion By: Vote: Conditions: NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION ITEM:

2 COMMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS: Pete Griffin Virginia Golan Tim Schacht Ed Mickelson Brett Garrett Scot Draughn Melissa Marino ADJOURNMENT: Time Out:

3 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES OF MEETING May 10, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Virginia Golan, Pete Griffin, Ed Mickelson, Tim Schacht, Brett Garrett OTHERS PRESENT: Chad Flowers, Megan Eufinger, Tony Eufinger, George Tornick, Polo Padilla, Julie Martin, Brian Seitz, Andrew Souders, Matt Homan, Dale Mannasmith MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: May 10, 2017 meeting minutes were approved as submitted. CITIZEN COMMENTS: ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS: OLD BUSINESS: 1. Exterior Plan/Landscape Plan: An application to construct a new +/- 4,263 sq. ft. Office/Warehouse facility on property located on Square Drive in the M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing) zoning district. NEW BUSINESS: ***APPLICATION WITHDRAWN*** 2. Certificate of Appropriateness: An application for a new door, awning and patio at property located at 113 W. Fifth Street (The Ville Grill) in the B-3 (Central Business District) zoning district. George Tornick presented the application to the Board. He would like to add a temporary sign on the alley side of the building. Mr. Tornick also discussed wanting to put up a metal fence for a patio on W 5 th street frontage. Mr. Schacht pointed out a change of the date November 1, 2016 should be 2017 that needed to be changed on the staff report. Mr. Schacht ask of the time line for the temporary sign which will be 8 weeks. Mr. Tornick stated the materials for the temp sign would be hard flexible vinyl and is water/mildew resistant. The size of the sign will be 10 x3. Mr. Schacht recommended that a professional install the temporary sign. Mr. Tornick stated the trim and door would be painted to match the existing paint. The gate opening will be 4ft wide. Mr. Griffin had concerns of the size of the sidewalk after the patio is installed. Mr. Tornick stated the fence would be 7 ft. from the curb. Mr. Schacht stated per our Uptown Plan he doesn t think the sign fits the historic natural of the district but because it s a temporary sign it will be okay since it is attached in a temporary natural. The Board agreed to give the applicant 12 weeks until the permanent sign will have to be installed. Mr. Schact read through the conditions that the Board had requested in order to approve the application. Motion By: Mr. Garrett Vote: 5-0 Conditions: Approved with conditions 1

4 3. Certificate of Appropriateness: An application for building modifications (roof replacement) at 214 South Court Street (Eufinger Law Office) in the O-R (Office Residential District) zoning district. Tony Eufinger presented the application to the Board. Mr. Eufinger stated over the last year they have had substantial water intrusion in one of the areas of the house. They have hired a company, Durable Slate and Tile, in efforts to try and save the slate. Unfortunately the company stated at this point the roof will have to be replaced. Mr. Eufinger stated the cost would be $100,000 to replace the slate roof with a new slate roof. The applicant began to look at other options and found a replacement option designed to replicate the look of slate. Mr. Eufinger stated there were homes in the area that had regular asphalt shingles and showed photos of these homes. He stated the cost of the asphalt shingles would be $20,000 vs $100,000. Mr. Schacht discussed the inconsistences of the roofs on the surrounding homes. He stated in the past no one had to come to the Design Review Board until now. If the slate is removed it would remove priceless historical value. Mr. Schact would like to see written evidence of the cost for a new slate roof. Mr. Eufinger stated his concerns with spending that amount on a new slate roof. Mr. Flowers asked if the applicant has looked at the cost of a synthetic slate. Mr. Schacht would like for the applicant to look at other options for the roof and come back to the next meeting with a written estimate for a new slate roof. The Board will help assist on finding a list of architects. The Board is requesting when the applicant comes back to the next meeting they bring a written estimate and evidence of other options. The applicant will table the application until June 14 th meeting. Motion By: Mr. Garrett Vote: 5-0 Conditions: Tabled until June 14 th meeting 4. Exterior Plan/Landscape Plan: An application for building modifications at property located at 555 Colemans Crossing Blvd (Walmart) in the SD1 (Special District One) zoning district. Polo Padilla presented the application to the Board. Walmart is wanting to get back to its original brand color, blue. The applicant stated most of the EFIS and masonry screened walls will be painted. The brick will remain as is. Motion By: Ms. Golan Vote: 5-0 Conditions: Approved as submitted 5. Exterior Plan/Landscape Plan: An application to construct a new +/-5,300 sq. ft. Archery Center on property located at 1042 Industrial Parkway in SD1 (Special District One) zoning district. Matt Homan presented the application to the Board. Applicant stated they received the staff report. The applicant provided the Board with the new site plan and landscaping plan. They have shifted two-thirds of the parking spaces to the side that were all in a line across the road frontage. Mr. Schacht read through the staff report. Mr. Flowers asked if the applicant if there was potential to relocate the 7 parking spots to the stripped area on the side and get rid of the front parking. Mr. Schacht stated the applicant needs to work with city staff on any engineering reports that needs to be addressed and same with any kind of variance that they will need. The applicant discussed all the materials that would be used. Mr. Schacht had questions on the type of glass they would be using and gave suggestions on what type would worked with the design. Mr. Schacht would like to see more glass on the front of the building. Mr. Mickelson is not a fan of the horizontal stripe layer on the south exterior. The Board recommends moving the building up to the build to line and move all the parking to the side. Mr. Griffin likes the Serbian Spruce and believes it will stand out. Mr. Mickelson stated he would replace the Birds Nest Spruce with 2

5 something else. Mr. Mickelson recommends they do something else with the maiden grass. Ms. Golan stated she liked the parking in the front. The applicant stated they could modify the landscaping as needed. Mr. Homan stated the fencing will be wood in nature and horizontal orientation. The trash enclosure will match the fence. Mr. Schacht stated the applicant will work with city staff on permits for all signs. The brick will be painted Bohemian grey and the stone will be stack stone. The siding will be Charcoal corrugated metal siding as well as the trim. The garage door will be painted grey. The Board would like to see more windows to the Southeast side of the building. The applicant will need to go in front of BZA for their variances. Mr. Schacht read through the conditions that the Board had requested in order to approve the application. Motion By: Mr. Griffin Vote: 5-0 Conditions: Approved with conditions Discussion Item: COMMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. 3

6 Engineering, Planning and Zoning City Hall, 209 S. Main Street Marysville, Ohio (937) FAX (937) May 3, 2017 To: City of Marysville Design Review Board From: Chad Flowers City Planner RE: Planning Staff Report 214 South Court Street Certificate of Appropriateness: An application for building modifications (roof replacement) at 214 S Court Street (Eufinger Law Office) in the O-R (Office Residential) zoning district. Applicant/Owner: Megan and Tony Eufinger Eufinger Law offices, LLC 214 South Court Street Marysville, OH Location: The property is located in the Uptown Marysville Design Review District and is zoned O-R (Office Residential). Property located to the north, south, and west are also zoned O-R, Property to the east is zoned B-3 (Central Business District) and BR (Business Residential. PLANNING & ZONING STAFF ANALYSIS: After review of the submitted application materials, the following information is to guide discussion between the Board and the applicant. Site Plan: The applicant is proposed to remove the current slate shingle roof and replace with storm master shingle with slate look (color: Pewter Slate). Building Materials & Colors (including roofing): The applicant has provided the following material information: Roof material: Roof color: Asphalt Pewter Slate If you have any questions or comments about the aforementioned comments, please feel free to contact me at (937) or via at cflowers@marysvilleohio.org. Cc: J. Hoyt R. Todd

7 Supplemental Information for Design Review Board 214 South Court Street Slate Roof Replacement Application Tony Eufinger and Megan Eufinger Eufinger Law Offices, LLC We hope that these photographs provide additional information and support for our application to replace the slate roof on the Eufinger Law Offices, LLC building located at 214 South Court Street in Marysville s Historic District. First, please note that our roof is not currently made up of entirely slate. Two sections of roof above the front porch and above the bay window were replaced with asphalt shingles years before we purchased this building in March Please note that with the exception of the Parrott Law Office building two doors down and the Marysville First United Methodist Church building directly across the street from the Eufinger Law Offices building, none of the remaining neighboring buildings on our block or its immediate radius have slate roof shingles. When the Parrott Law Office and First United Methodist Church built new additions, each abandoned its historic decorative tile and slate tile look respectively for asphalt shingles. Therefore, allowing the Eufinger Law Offices building to replace its slate roof with an asphalt shingle would be consistent with the neighborhood and not create a hole in the present pattern as shown in the following photographs:

8 Note the asphalt shingle roofing used on the Bushong Property next door to Eufinger Law Offices and the Marysville First Congregational United Church of Christ across the street from the Parrott Law Office building:

9 This photo of the Parrott Law Office building shows the garage addition constructed sometime around 2010 in which the builders used asphalt shingle roofing as opposed to the more ornate tile found on the original structure.

10 This photograph shows the addition to the Marysville First United Methodist Church. While the original church structure retained its slate roof, the building addition used asphalt shingle roofing.

11 These photos show other buildings on the same block as Eufinger Law Offices, and the historic Shearer Banks building across the street all with asphalt shingle roofing.

12

13 The photograph shows buildings owned by the Union County Historical Society approximately half of one city block from the Eufinger Law Offices building on South Court Street. Note that all four of these buildings have asphalt shingle roofs.

14 Finally, we wanted to document the urgency of our roof replacement. This photograph show the water damage that has been done to one section of the Eufinger Law Offices building. We have suffered water damage in other parts of the building that we have up to this point been able to repair. The Durable Slate Company attempted to repair this section of roof three times without success. Hence, their letter indicating that our roof is beyond repair and at the end of its lifespan. We hope that the Design Review Board members will appreciate our desire to maintain this beautiful historic building within our budget means. Without a new roof, we anticipate further deterioration and damage to our building.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29