HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/26/2021 - Minutes - Design Review Board (3)Minutes
Design Review Board February 26, 2021 11:00 AM Phone *888 475 4499 and Webinar ID: 964 8719 8407 Internet: https://zoom.us/j/96487198407
Board Members Present: Jeremy Osborne, David Hebert, Ray Holliday, William McKinney and Susan McGrail
Board Members Absent: Luke Marvel
Staff Present:Director of Planning & Development Services Michael Ostrowski. Assistant Director Molly Hitchcock, Senior Planner Rachel Lazo, Economic Development Manager Aubrey Nettles, Staff Planner Brandi Tedrick, Staff Planner Derrick Williams, Planning
Technician Robin Macias, Staff Planner Jesse DiMeolo, and Admirative Support Specialist Kristen Hejny
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order.
Chairman Osborne called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear Visitors
No visitors spoke.
AGENDI ITEM NO. 3.1: Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes.
•February 14, 2020
Board member Holliday motioned to approve the minutes. Board member McKinney seconded
the motion, which passed (4-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.2: Presentation, discussion, and possible action to consider Alternative Compliance to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 7.10 Non-Residential Architectural Standards for the Kelsey-Seybold Call Center located at 1150 Copperfield
Parkway. Case #NRA2021-000001
Senior Planner Lazo presented the item to the Board.
Board Member David Hebert arrived at 11:13 a.m.
Applicant, Jeanette Shaw, presented to the Board, and was available for questions.
Board Member Holliday requested clarification on articulation requirements.
Senior Planner Lazo confirmed that the projection must be four feet or greater.
Board Member Holliday stated that it is possible to project a few feet with tilt wall and asked if
this was an option for the design.
Ms. Shaw stated that this would bring in additional costs.
Chairman Osborne asked if adjacent buildings are tilt wall construction.
Senior Planner Lazo stated that adjacent buildings are not tilt wall construction.
Board Member Holliday expressed concerns for architectural element protrusions and asked if
more stone could be used on the building.
Ms. Shaw explained that more than 1/3 of the façade is stone, but accents could be modified.
Senior Planner Lazo explained the reasoning for alternative compliances being heard by the Board.
Board Member McKinney asked for the percentage of difference from the prescribed
architectural standards allowable and being requested by the applicant.
Senior Planner Lazo stated that as part of the alternative compliance process, staff did not review for deficiencies from the standard ordinance requirements.
There was general discussion amongst the Board.
Board Member McKinney motioned to approve the request as proposed. Acting Chairman Osborne seconded the motion for discussion purposes, the motion failed (2-2-1), with Board Member McGrail abstaining and Board Members Holliday and Hebert voting in opposition.
Assistant Director Hitchcock explained that a vote of at least three members for a motion to carry is required. Ms. Hitchcock stated that the Board can make a second motion, or with the original failed motion the applicant will be required to resubmit designs for consideration.
Board Member Holliday suggested dressing the building with additional veneer stone or brick to
add value to the building and community.
Ms. Shaw asked what façades would be required to have additional veneer.
Board Member Holliday stated that elevations seen from the street.
Chairman Osborne stated that he is comfortable with the additional veneer only on the front of the building.
Board Member Holliday would like the applicant to propose dressing up the architectural elements
along the front of the building. Mr. Holliday suggested the wainscot brown brought up higher
above windows, dressing the façade a little more in exchange for not articulating the form of the building.
Chairman Osborne suggested additional relief or feature along the north elevation.
Board Member Hebert suggested stone and a sunshade along the front to allow for future expansion.
Economic Development Manager Nettles stated that this is an Economic Development project working on bringing jobs to the community. Ms. Nettles also stated that expansion is expected.
There was general discussion amongst the Board.
Board Member Holliday motioned to approve the design with changes discussed including
additional stone and sunshades on the front and sunshades on the east elevation of the building.
Board Member Hebert seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Possible action and discussion on future agenda items – A
Design Review Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
There were no items presented.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:47a.m.
APPROVED:
_________________________________ Chairperson, Jeremy Osborne
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Kristen Hejny, Administrative Support Specialist