[I. Call to order]
[00:00:09]
I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD. CAN WE HAVE THE ROLL, PLEASE? MR. EITAN? HERE, MR. DAVEY HERE, MR. MALITZ HERE. MISS MOORE HERE, MR. STRASSLER HERE, MR. HENSON, MR. BROWN, COUNCIL MEMBER. BRISK. MAYOR. SPALDING. MAYOR. SPALDING, PRESENT. PINCH HITTING FOR COUNCILWOMAN. PRESIDENT. THERE ARE FIVE VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT.
[III. Action on minutes: May 12, 2025]
WE HAVE A QUORUM. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR REVISIONS TO THE MINUTES OF OUR MEETING OF MAY 12TH? AND IF THERE ARE NONE, MAY I HAVE A MOTION REGARDING THOSE MINUTES? SO MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 12TH ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES. IS THERE A SECOND I WILL SECOND. MR. STROLLER. YES, MISS MOORE? YES, MR. DAVEY? YES. MR. MALIK. YES.MR. ITEM? YES. MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. ARE THERE
[IV. Additions or corrections to the agenda]
ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA? YES, WE DO HAVE ONE. WE HAVE A SCHOOL DISTRICT HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT SOME CHANGES THAT THEY'VE MADE TO THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BUILDING. WE'D LIKE TO REQUEST THEM TO BE ADDED UNDER OTHER BUSINESS. AND WE HAVE THE PRESENTATION READY WHEN THAT'S READY UP ON THE AGENDA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS FOR ANYONE WHO INTENDS TO SPEAK TONIGHT, IF YOU COULD SWEAR THAT YOU TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. YEAH. AND ARE THERE ANY VISITORS HERE WHO WANT TO SPEAK ON MATTERS NOT BEFORE THIS BOARD? THAT BEING THE CASE,[VI. Cases]
LET'S CALL MATTER ARB 26 2025 OR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ALLOW FOR A GARAGE TO BE BUILT AND WAIVERS FOR THE GARAGE SIZE GARAGE DOOR AND DRIVEWAY MATERIAL AND 6588 NEW ALBANY CONDIT ROAD. CAN YOU GIVE THE STAFF REPORT? YES. OF COURSE. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS WAS FIRST HEARD ON THE MAY 12TH MEETING. AND SINCE THAT TIME, STAFF AND THE APPLICANT HAVE WORKED WITH THE COMMENTS RECEIVED TO IMPROVE THE CHANGE AND IMPROVE AND CHANGE THE STAFF REPORT AND DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED GARAGE. AND WE JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE BOARD FOR PROVIDING THE HELP AND FEEDBACK TO BOTH STAFF AND THE APPLICANT. AS A REFRESHER, THIS CASE IS FOR THE PROPOSED GARAGE AT 6588 ALBANY CONDUIT ROAD. WHICH FALLS UNDER THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL SUBSECTION OF THE URBAN CENTER CODE. AND I'M JUST GOING TO START BY DOING A SHORT REFRESHER OF THE PROPOSED DESIGN, AND THEN GO INTO MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE NEW LAYOUT AND THE WAIVERS. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS JUST THE UPDATED SITE PLAN SHOWING THE NEW DESIGN OF THE GARAGE AND THE ASSOCIATED DRIVEWAY EXTENSION. THE NEW DESIGN IS CAUSING THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST THREE WAIVERS, ONE FOR THE GARAGE SIZE, ONE FOR THE GARAGE DOOR SIZE, AND ONE FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY. THE GARAGE ELEVATIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE THE FIRST APPLICATION, BUT JUST PUT THEM IN HERE AS A REMINDER. THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR THE LARGER GARAGE DOOR AS THEY DID THE FIRST TIME, BUT THEY DID GIVE US AN OPTION FOR THE TWO SMALLER GARAGE DOORS, JUST AS KIND OF A BACKUP OPTION AS WELL. AND AGAIN, THE DIMENSIONS AND MATERIALS HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE THE FIRST SUBMITTAL, BUT STAFF STILL RECOMMENDS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THE GARAGE ROOF COLOR BE CHANGED TO MATCH THAT OF THE EXISTING HOME. SO THIS IS THE NEW LAYOUT. SO THIS SHOWS LAYOUT THE GARAGE AND THE DESIGN WILL ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THE SIDE YARD ENCROACHMENT VARIANCE, AS WELL AS THE VARIANCE FOR HAVING THE GARAGE DOOR VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. THE VARIANCE HAS BEEN. VARIANCES THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED WOULD BE NEEDED. NEEDING TO EXTEND THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE GARAGE DOORS. BEING ON THE REAR SIDE OF THE GARAGE INSTEAD OF ON THE FRONT TO GET RID OF THAT VARIANCE. SO THE DARKER GREEN IS SHOWING THE EXISTING HOME, AND THE LIGHTER IS THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. AND THEN THE DARK RED IS SHOWING THE PROPOSED GARAGE, AND THE LIGHTER RED IS SHOWING THE EXTENSION OF THE DRIVEWAY. AND SO THIS WOULD REFLECT THEN A REAR LOAD IF I'M READING THAT CORRECTLY, A REAR LOAD. CORRECT? CORRECT. YEAH.THANK YOU. YEAH. THE DRIVE OR THE WOULD BE OVER HERE. YEP YEP. OKAY. AND THEN JUST AGAIN THE WAIVERS. SO WAIVER A IS GOING TO BE FOR THE GARAGE SIZE. THEY'RE REQUESTING A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT
[00:05:02]
GARAGE. WE'RE ONLY 800FT■!S IS PERMITTED FOR THE DOOR SIZE A 16 FOOT WIDE BY EIGHT FEET TALL GARAGE DOOR WHEN A TEN FOOT IN WIDTH IS PERMITTED AND THEN GARAGE. SORRY, WAIVER C WOULD BE FOR GARAGE. THAT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY THAT THAT'S NOT BAD FOR THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY WHEN ONLY ASPHALT, BRICK, STONE OR SIMULATED STONE PAVERS IS ALLOWED. SO THESE ARE THE WAIVER STANDARDS. I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE THESE UP ON THE SCREEN AS I KIND OF GO THROUGH WHAT WAS REQUESTED, JUST SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE THOSE. SO FOR THE SIZE VARIANCE OF THE GARAGE ITSELF, WE DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IN POINT A, THE IRB MAY CONSIDER HOW A PROPOSED PROPOSAL RELATES TO ADJACENT STRUCTURES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THE PROPOSED PROPOSED GARAGE DOES MATCH THE SIZE, STYLE, AND LOCATION OF OTHERS ON THE STREET AND FITS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. AND WITH THE PROPOSED ROOF CONDITION OF APPROVAL, THE COMPONENTS OF THE EXISTING HOME STAFF DID USE SOME BUILDING FOOTPRINT SIZES TO GET ROUGH MEASUREMENTS OF NEIGHBORING ATTACHED OR DETACHED STRUCTURES, AND ALMOST ALL OF THEM WERE OVER THE 800FT■!S JUST FOR REFERENCE. AND WHILE THE APPLICATION DOES NOT FULLY MEET THE INTENT OF THE STANDARD, IT DOES MAINTAIN A BALANCED RATIO OF DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED LAND IN ALLIANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF ENGAGE NEW ALBANY STRATEGIC PLAN, AND THE CITY ARCHITECT CONFIRMED THAT THE GARAGE DESIGN IS APPROPRIATE AND THE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE DOES REMAIN WELL BELOW THE 50%. MAX, ONLY BEING 5 TO 7% LOT COVERAGE. AND ALTHOUGH THE REQUEST MAY NOT NECESSARILY MAY NOT BE NECESSARY DUE TO SIZE CONSTRAINT, A ONE SIZE FITS ALL APPROACH FOR THE SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE VILLAGE CENTER MAY NOT BE A THE MOST. SUITABLE APPROACH HERE, WHILE THE LOT THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS 1.1 ACRES, IT DOES MEET RURAL RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS THAT ALLOW LARGER DETACHED STRUCTURES, BUT THE CODE ONLY REFERENCES GARDEN STRUCTURES AND LACKS CLARITY ON THE OTHER. ON OTHER LARGER STRUCTURES. AND BEFORE 2019, VARIANCES FOR LARGER ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WERE COMMON OUTSIDE OF THE VILLAGE CENTER, AND IN 2019 CODE WAS ACTUALLY AMENDED AND FORMALIZED THE FLEXIBILITY BASED ON LOT SIZE TO HAVE LARGER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BE ALLOWED, SO CITY STAFF CONSIDERS THIS A CODE SHORTCOMING THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED WITH AN UPDATE TO ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING POLICIES OUTSIDE OF THE VILLAGE CENTER. OKAY, AND THEN LOOKING FOR THE DOOR VARIANCE THAT IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE FIRST ONE, THAT WE HAVE THE SAME SORT OF THING.IT MATCHES WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA, BUT IT WILL JUST SAY THAT WE WERE PRESENTED WITH TWO OPTIONS. AND THE SECOND OPTION WOULD BE MEETING CODE REQUIREMENTS, AND IT WOULD BE ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE GARAGE. I WANT TO POINT THAT OUT AGAIN. IT WON'T BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET THIS TIME. AND THEN FOR THE DRIVEWAY TO NOT GET INTO TOO MUCH DETAIL WITH IT.
THERE ARE A FEW DIFFERENT MATERIALS ON DRIVEWAYS ON THE STREET AS WELL. WE HAVE SOME ASPHALT AND SOME CONCRETE, AND THEN THE DRIVEWAY DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY IS ALSO GRAVEL, ALTHOUGH VARIANCE HAS NEVER BEEN ALLOWED FOR A EXTENSION OF A GRAVEL DRIVEWAY.
WE HAVE HAD CONCRETE VARIANCES GET PASSED BEFORE, AND IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER. WHAT IS THE IF I AT LEAST LOOK, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE FOR A MOMENT TO THE OVERALL VIEW OF THE LOT? SO THAT BASICALLY THEN WE HAVE ALL THIS EXISTING GRAVEL, CORRECT. CORRECT. AND SO BASICALLY THEN WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE JUST WE'RE ADDING A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT MAYBE 20% MORE, I MEAN, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF LENGTH FROM THE STREET. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. AND AS YOU ANSWER, COULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF JUST FOR THE RECORD. SO DAN OR SOMEONE. RIGHT. THANK YOU. DAN. MR. JEFFRIES. OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL. LET'S SEE. THAT'S THAT'S THE QUESTION I HAD FOR STAFF. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE OFFER THE HOMEOWNER ANYTHING? I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS. OKAY. WHY DON'T IS IT HELPFUL? IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD TO WHAT STAFF HAS SAID, OR CAN YOU JUST BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS? JUST AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THAT'S GREAT. GO AHEAD PLEASE. I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS ONE. I'VE DRIVEN BY THE PROPERTY MULTIPLE MULTIPLE TIMES. THE HOMEOWNER TO THE LEFT HAS A VERY LARGE STRUCTURE WITH ONE DOOR. THE HOMEOWNER TO THE RIGHT HAS A REALLY TALL, THE RED BARN LIKE REALLY TALL. I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOUR HOME WAS BUILT IN 1960, AND I FEEL LIKE ALL OF THE SURROUNDING HOMES LOOK SIMILAR, AND I LIKE I WOULD LOVE TO REVISIT YOUR FIRST PROPOSAL LIKE I, I, I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH IT. LIKE I FEEL LIKE ALL THE HOMES ARE, ARE SIMILAR, YOU
[00:10:02]
KNOW, IN IN AGE AND STYLE. AND I JUST, I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE ADDING THE EXTENSION OF THE DRIVEWAY, IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T SEEM FAIR AS ALL THE OTHER GARAGES OR THE BARNS ARE. YOU KNOW WHAT HE'S PROPOSING. AND SMALLER HIS IS SMALLER, YOU KNOW. AND THEN I LOOK AT 161 AND I CAN SEE THERE'S LIKE A WHOLE PARKING GARAGE OF CARS ON THE OTHER PROPERTY, LIKE, I, I FEEL LIKE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING DOES NOT IT'S NOT BOTHERING ME FROM AN ESTHETIC STANDPOINT. AND I, YOU KNOW, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THIS OR THE OLD OR THE OLD BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY TAKEN ACTION ON THE OLD SUBMISSION. ARE YOU ASKING US TO REVISIT IT? I AM NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THAT, BUT I'LL DEFER TO THE REST OF THE BOARD ON THAT. THIS THIS IS HIS. SO THIS PROPERTY HERE HAS A REALLY, REALLY TALL GARAGE. AND THEN THE ONE NEXT TO IT IS A MUCH BIGGER STRUCTURE. AND AS I DROVE BY MANY, MANY TIMES, IT WAS REALLY HARD FOR ME TO SEE IT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE SPEED OF THE CARS GOING BY. AND, YOU KNOW, YOUR PROPERTY IS SET BACK WAY FARTHER THAN THE OTHER. SO I'M JUST ASKING TO RECONSIDER. JUST IF WE CAN THINK THROUGH THIS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I HAVE AN ANALYSIS WHICH I'LL OFFER, BUT I DON'T WANT TO, SINCE I'M SITTING IN THE CHAIRMAN'S SEAT TONIGHT, I DON'T WANT TO SQUASH COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL. CAN YOU CONFIRM THE LOT SIZE IS 1.1 ACRES? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? OKAY, SO THAT WOULD PUT IT IN LINE WITH THE OUTSIDE. IT'S A 1200 SQUARE FEET IS EQUAL TO WHAT. WHAT OUTSIDE THE ZONE WOULD CREATE IF IT WAS ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY, NOT IN THE URBAN CENTER CODE. IT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THE SIZE REQUESTED WITHOUT A VARIANCE. THANK YOU. MR. MALIK. DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING OR WANT ME TO GIVE A COMMENT? AND THEN I FEEL LIKE MY COMMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAST PRESENTATION OF THIS. I THINK THIS PROPOSED SOLUTION THAT WAS BROUGHT HERE THIS EVENING IS MARGINALLY IMPROVED. I, I DO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ELEVATIONS THAT DON'T PROVIDE THE KIND OF DETAIL THAT WE WOULD OTHERWISE BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON IN TERMS OF WHAT IS PROPOSED TO BE FACING ROUTE 605, I SEE A SINGLE LINE DRAWING THAT APPEARS TO HAVE JUST A BLANK WALL SURFACE ON THAT. SO IF THIS PLAN WERE TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD, I MIGHT REQUEST AT LEAST A SMALL WINDOW ON THAT ELEVATION, WHICH WOULD BE TYPICAL FOR WHAT WE WOULD OTHERWISE REQUIRE IN A IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT. BUT OTHERWISE I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS. THE ONE THING I WOULD SAY WITH THIS THOUGH, WITH THIS DESIGN WITH THE GARAGE DOOR IN THE BACK, YOU KNOW, WITH THE DRIVEWAY BEING ON THE SIDE, YOU'LL SEE VERY LITTLE OF THAT BUILDING ON THE ROAD.UNDERSTOOD? YEAH. UNDERSTOOD IT. IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TUCKED BEHIND. I DID HAVE I GUESS THAT DOES BRING ONE OTHER QUESTION, BECAUSE BOTH MISS MOORE AND I ARE LOOKING AT SITE PLANS HERE AS WE'RE TALKING, IS IT YOUR INTENTION THAT THE PROPOSED BARN FULL OF BARN WOULD ALIGN WITH THE NEIGHBOR'S FRONT OF BARN? I BELIEVE IT WILL BE A LITTLE A FEW FEET IN FRONT OF IT. OKAY.
BUT GENERALLY IN THE SAME AREA. OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL, LET ME AGAIN, SINCE I'M, I'M THE LAWYER, SO I'LL GO THROUGH EACH OF THE. CAN WE GO BACK TO THE, THE STANDARDS THEN. SO AGAIN AS I THINK LAST TIME I THINK THE ON ALL THREE OF THE WAIVER REQUESTS, THE FIRST AND THE FOURTH ONE ARE EASY FOR ME BECAUSE AGAIN, IT AND I KNOW THAT THE, THE STANDARD A TENDS TO BE THE LEAD AND SOMETIMES IS CONVINCES EVERYBODY THAT AND THEN WE IGNORE B AND C, BUT FOR ME A IS EASILY MET IN ALL THREE AND D IS EASILY MET. I THINK WHAT AS I COMMENTED, I'LL I'LL MAKE A COMMENT FOR THE THIRD TIME, MAYBE A FIRST TIME ON THE RECORD, BUT A NICE JOB STAFF DID ON THIS REPORT BECAUSE IT REALLY HELPED ME AND CHANGED MY VIEW ON ON AT LEAST ON TWO OF THE MATTERS. I'M NOT SURE I HAD A VIEW ON THE THIRD ONE. SO ON THE SIZE OF THE GARAGE WHEN I GO TO THE SUBSTANTIALLY MEET THE INTENT OF THE STANDARD, WHAT I'VE CONCLUDED BASED UPON WHAT STAFF HAS PROVIDED IS THAT I THINK THE INTENT OF THE SIZE IS THAT THE SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES NOT OVERWHELM THE LOT SIZE. AND MOST OF THE LOTS, I THINK, IN THE VILLAGE CENTER ARE MUCH SMALLER. THEREFORE, THE 800FT■!S WOULD MAKE SENSE IN THT CASE. IN THIS. IN THIS CASE, I FIND AGAIN THAT THAT'S THE INTENT. AND IN IN THE CONTEXT NOW OF A LARGER LOT SIZE THAN THE TYPICAL LOT SIZE IN THE VILLAGE CENTER, IT DOES SEEM TO ME. AND ALSO THEN COUNSEL'S
[00:15:06]
SUBSEQUENT ACTION TO PERMIT THAT SPECIFICALLY OUTSIDE OF THE VILLAGE CENTER. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I CAN FIND, I CAN REACH I CAN CONCLUDE THAT THE B STANDARD THAT THAT THAT THE SIZE SUBSTANTIALLY MEETS THE INTENT OF THE STANDARD. AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE LARGE SIZE AND SIZE OF YOUR LOT. AND SO I'M PREPARED TO SAY B IS MET FOR THE, FOR THE, FOR THE STRUCTURE. AS TO SEE. I THINK THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES NECESSARY FOR REASONS OF FAIRNESS DUE TO UNUSUAL BUILDING STRUCTURE OR SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF AMORPHOUS. BUT I THINK WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY IS THAT THE SITE SPECIFIC CONDITION IS A VERY LARGE LOT. YES. AND THEREFORE AS, AS FAR AS THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE IS, IS CONCERNED, I THINK I'M PREPARED TO SUPPORT A WAIVER. AND AGAIN, HATS OFF TO STAFF FOR THE ADDITIONAL DETAIL BECAUSE THAT HELPED ME GET THERE ON THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY. AGAIN, INTERESTING QUESTION. WHAT IS THE INTENT OF A STANDARD THAT SAYS DON'T HAVE GRAVEL, HAVE OTHER THINGS. BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT, WHEN YOU'RE SIMPLY ADDING A LITTLE BIT MORE, WHEN YOU HAVE A LOT THERE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET RID OF THE GRAVEL. AND IT SEEMS TO ME TO NOT MAKE SENSE TO ADD ASPHALT OR PAVING STONES, ETC. AND SO I THINK I CAN FIND THAT, THAT THE INTENT IS TO NOT HAVE IT. AND YET IN A CONTEXT WHERE ALL YOU'RE DOING IS ADDING A LITTLE BIT, THAT DOESN'T OFFEND ME. SO I THINK I'M PREPARED TO SAY AS FAR AS THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY EXTENSION, THAT B IS MATTHEW. AND AGAIN, I THINK THE UNUSUAL SITE SPECIFIC CONDITION FOR ME IS YOU'VE GOT A GRAVEL DRIVEWAY. SO FOR THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY AND FOR THE SIZE, I'M THERE FOR THE BIG DOOR. HONESTLY, I DON'T CARE. OKAY? I'M I'M JUST GOING TO BE STRAIGHTFORWARD WITH YOU.WE DID BOTH OPTIONS. IF, YOU KNOW, WE'LL DO THE TWO GARAGE DOORS. WE JUST DIDN'T KNOW SINCE NOW IT WAS FACING BEHIND THE HOUSE. IF IT WAS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE, WE'LL DO TWO. IF IT'S NOT, WE'LL DO ONE. YEAH. AND CAN YOU DO YOU HAD TWO, EIGHT BY EIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ROOM TO DO TEN BY EIGHT OR NOT. YOU JUST YOU COULD EITHER GOING TO DO YOU'RE EITHER GOING TO DO TWO EIGHT BY 8 OR 1 116. IS THAT I BELIEVE. SO I MEAN I HAVE TO LOOK AND I GUESS GET WITH OUR BUILDER AND VERIFY WHICH WAY YOU WANT TO GO, BECAUSE I NEED TO MAKE SURE MY TRUCK, I MEAN, BECAUSE I WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS I END UP HAVING TROUBLE GETTING TO I GUESS IF YOU'VE GOT 30 FOOT THERE, YOU PROBABLY HAVE ROOM TO DO BIGGER THAN EIGHT, RIGHT? EIGHT. IF THAT'S THE CASE, PROBABLY TEN BY EIGHT. YEAH. IN WHICH CASE YOU'RE THAT'S CLEARLY IN THE. SO FOR ME. RIGHT. I HAD A WHOLE STORY THAT INVOLVED MR. BROWN. AND WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS I DON'T THINK I CAN GET THERE ON THE, ON THE SUBSTANTIALLY MEET THE INTENT, BUT IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PUSH IT, THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THERE. I'M NOT PUSHING IT. SO THAT'S WHERE I AM. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER ANYBODY HAS DISAGREES OR AGREES WITH WHAT I'M SAYING, BUT THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I COME DOWN. IF I COULD ASK A QUESTION, I GUESS, TO YOU GUYS AS WELL. AND I WAS NOT HERE LAST MEETING, SO I DIDN'T GET THE FULL STORY. BUT IS THE REAR LOADING IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM LAST? YES, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS NOT PERMITTED IS A FRONT LOAD GARAGE. AND SO WE SAID DON'T PLEASE DON'T BRING US A FRONT LOAD BECAUSE I COULDN'T, I COULDN'T I AT LEAST FOR ONE, I THINK MR. MALLETT'S ALSO WAS IN THE POSITION THAT THAT WAS A PROBLEM. I THINK WHERE I'M STRUGGLING IS NONE OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE AREA FIT WITHIN THE VILLAGE PLAN. SO THAT'S WHY I'M LIKE, YEAH, I KNOW IF I WAS THE OWNER AND HAD TO GO AND PULL BEHIND THE BUILDING EACH TIME TO GO IN AND OUT, IT SEEMS TEDIOUS FOR THE SAKE OF NO GAIN. I THINK ABOUT SOMEONE WITH A FAMILY WHO'S HAVING TO GO BACK THERE, AND YOU'RE REDUCING A LOT OF THE ACCESS TO THE HOME. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S A LITTLE HEAVY HANDED WITH NO SIGNIFICANT GAIN. I THINK A BLANK FACE ON THE FRONT IS ACTUALLY LESS ARCHITECTURALLY ATTRACTIVE THAN A NICE GARAGE DOOR. SO I WOULD HAVE A HARDER TIME SAYING THIS IS A BETTER SOLUTION THAN JUST PULLING RIGHT INTO A GARAGE. WELL, I THINK WE'RE DEALING WITH SEVERAL VARIABLES HERE. WE HAVE FOLKS THAT WEREN'T PART OF THE ORIGINAL REVIEW, AND NOW WE'RE TRIPPING INTO SOME PROCEDURAL ISSUES. WE TOOK ACTION AS A BOARD LAST MONTH. I WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE PROCEDURE IS TO REVISIT THAT. MY OPINION AS AS ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, IS THAT I FIND THIS TO BE A MORE ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION AND WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT, BUT TO GO
[00:20:05]
BACKWARDS DOESN'T SEEM APPROPRIATE TO ME, BOTH AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AS THIS BOARD IS CONCERNED, BUT ALSO BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT WE PROVIDED LAST MONTH. SO THAT'S WHERE I'M FALLING ON THIS DISCUSSION. DO WE WANT I MEAN, LET'S I GUESS WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THIS, WHY DON'T WE DO THIS? WE I THINK. WE CAN I THINK WE'VE GOT CONSENSUS ON TWO OF THE THREE WAIVER REQUESTS. I DON'T I DON'T I'M NOT WILLING TO STAND AGAINST EITHER DIRECTION. IF THIS IS A PROPOSED SOLUTION THAT GETS YOU WHAT YOU NEED AND IT GETS THE BOARD WHAT THEY NEED, I THINK THAT'S THAT'S PERFECTLY REASONABLE. MR. STRAUBEL, I'M JUST GOING TO REVISIT THE SINGLE DOOR VERSUS THE TWO DOOR SO IT BACKS UP. THIS IS NOW GOING TO BE FACING THE WINDSOR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS WHERE THE DOORS. AND IT APPEARS THAT THOSE DOORS ARE A SINGLE DOOR. SO TO ME, I THINK GIVEN IT'S THEIR, YOU KNOW, WE'RE FACING EACH OTHER, I COULD GET TO APPROVING THE SINGLE DOOR IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD PREFER. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE FAIR TO HAVE A SINGLE DOOR FACING A SINGLE DOOR. AND I THINK AND I THINK THAT WE WOULD NEED TO APPROVE NO WAIVERS IF WE WENT TO THE SINGLE DOOR, BUT WE THE TWO SINGLE DOORS, THE TWO SINGLE WIDE DOORS. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? RIGHT? I SAID I COULD APPROVE THE WAIVER NUMBER. LETTER C I'M SORRY. LETTER? B, SO YOU SUPPORT THAT. YOU COULD SUPPORT THE 16 FOOT. CORRECT. BECAUSE IT FACES THEM BASICALLY WHAT'S APPEARS ON THE FACE OF SIX, SIX, 16 AND THEN THE WINDSOR NEIGHBORHOODS. 16 WINDSOR HAS 16 FOOT DOORS. YES.DOOR. YEAH. THEY'RE ALL FACING THE BACK OKAY. THE OKAY. SO LET'S LET'S DO THIS. WHY DON'T I, WHY DON'T WE UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, LET'S GO THROUGH THE WAIVERS ONE BY ONE.
AND EITHER WE APPROVE THEM OR WE DON'T. CAN I GET SO I WOULD I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF A WAIVER TO UCC SECTION 3.2, 8.2 TO ALLOW THE GARAGE TO BE 1200 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, WHERE THE CODE ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OF 800FT■!S. IS THERE A SECOND SECOND? MR. ITEM YES, MR. STROLLER? YES, MISS MOORE, YES, MR. DAVEY, YES, MR. MALIK YES, THE MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES TO APPROVE WAIVER A ALL RIGHT. SO I WOULD I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER TO SECTION TWO AS IN ROMAN 2B3, TO ALLOW THE GARAGE TO BE 16FT WIDE, WHERE CODE ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OF TEN FEET WIDE AND TEN FEET IN WIDTH A GARAGE DOOR. GARAGE DOOR? YES. CORRECT. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT I WAS READING THIS, BUT IT SHOULD SAY GARAGE DOOR. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. WOULD IT WOULD THERE NEED TO BE LANGUAGE FOR THIS TO BE WHEN REAR FACING? I THINK WE'RE APPROVING. I THINK WE'RE APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, WHICH WHERE IT ALREADY IS A GREAT TIME. SO THE WAIVER IS SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND SECOND. MR. ITEM NO, FOR THE REASON THAT I BELIEVE THAT A 16 FOOT WIDE DOOR DOES NOT MEET THE SUBSTANTIALLY DOES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY MEET THE INTENT OF THE STANDARD. YES. MR. STROLLER? YES, MR. DAVEY? YES. MR. MALITZ YES, THE MOTION PASSES WITH FOUR VOTES IN FAVOR AND ONE VOTE AGAINST. I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF SECTION TWO ROMAN 1A1 TO ALLOW FOR THE EXTENSION OF A GRAVEL DRIVEWAY WHERE CODE REQUIRES ASPHALT, BRICK, STONE OR SIMULATED STONE. I'LL SECOND. MR. ITEM. YES, MR. DAVEY? YES, MISS. MOORE? NO, MR. STROLLER. YES, MR. MALITZ? YES. OKAY. THE MOTION PASSES WITH FOUR VOTES IN FAVOR AND ONE VOTE
[00:25:01]
AGAINST. MISS MOORE, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR DISSENTING VOTE FOR, I THINK RATIONALE. MR. ITEM IS ON TO ME. I FEEL LIKE MAYBE THAT SHOULD BE THE NEXT ONE. I'M NOT IN FAVOR FOR THE REAR FACING. DIRECTION. SO IS THAT IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? MR. RIGHT. NO, I WAS REALLY I'M APPROVING MORE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY. I'M SORRY. THE ALL WE'RE DOING HERE IS GIVING THEM THE RIGHT TO HAVE MORE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY IF THEY WANT ONE. I'M. WELL, I'M THINKING OF IT TURNED RIGHT THE OTHER WAY SO THAT THEN YOU WOULDN'T NEED THE DRIVEWAY. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE TURNED THE OTHER WAY I DO. OKAY, CONSIDERING THE ADJACENCIES. YES. THANK YOU.JUST GIVE ME A MOMENT TO WRITE IT DOWN. OKAY. THANK YOU ABOUT THIS. YEAH. AND SO THEN WE NEED A. OKAY. SO LET ME JUST SPEAK THROUGH THIS. SO IF YOU WANT TO ADVANCE YOUR POSITION THEN YOU WOULD NEED TO VOTE NO ON THE NEXT MOTION. CORRECT. SO I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL. MOVE TO APPROVE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OR APPLICATION ARB 26 2025 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. THE ROOF COLOR IS CHANGED TO A HISTORIC COLOR MATCHING THE EXISTING EXISTING HOUSE. WE HAVE A SECOND. I'LL SECOND. MR. ITEM. YES, MISS MOORE? YES, MR. STROLLER? YES, MR. DAVEY? YES, MR. MALLET? YES. THE MOTION PASSES. PASSES WITH ALL VOTES IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. SO THAT'S WHERE THE ROOF COLOR.
WELL, THAT'S FOR THE. SO. YEAH, WE JUST APPROVED THE REAR LOAD. I WAS EXPECTING YOU TO VOTE. NO, BUT I THINK WE JUST PASSED IT OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU'VE GOT YOUR REAR LOAD. YOU'VE GOT ALL THE WAIVERS. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR FOR US AS WE MADE SAUSAGE TONIGHT. THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THANKS TO THE BOARD AND AGAIN TO STAFF FOR AN
[VII. Other business]
EXCELLENT REPORT. AND I THINK WE NOW MOVE ON TO OTHER BUSINESS. SO WE GET TO HEAR AGAIN FROM OUR FRIENDS AT THE SCHOOL. CLICKER. I'M VICKI NEWELL FROM SHORE ARCHITECTS AND I JUST WANTED TO UPDATE YOU ON WE'VE MADE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE FLOOR PLANS AND THE ELEVATIONS SINCE YOUR LAST YEAR. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THE CHANGES WE HAD. REVIEW THE SITE PLANS, PRELIMINARY PLANS AND PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS. THE UPDATED DRAWINGS I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU ARE JUST LINE DRAWINGS, AND SOME OF THEM ARE JUST HAND DRAWN AND HAND DRAWN RENDERINGS.WE'VE NOT MODELED ANYTHING. FIRST SITE PLAN THAT WE HAD, WE HAD THE TWO STORY FRONT ONE STORY BACK. IT WAS VERY ELONGATED ALONG THE SITE. WE'VE CONVERTED THE BUILDING INTO A VERY SYMMETRICAL DESIGN. ALL PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING, WHETHER YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE FRONT NORTHERN PORTION OF THE BUILDING OR THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE BUILDING, THOSE ARE BOTH TWO STORY WINGS. SO IS THE WING CONNECTING BETWEEN EACH OF THOSE. IT TAKES UP LESS HORIZONTAL LENGTH ACROSS THE SITE. IT'S ALSO AVOIDING ALL THREE OF THE WETLANDS, WHICH ARE RIGHT HERE AND HERE AND THERE. THIS ONE OVER HERE. SO THESE ARE THE PREVIOUS FLOOR PLANS. THIS IS, AS YOU RECALL, WAS A ONE STORY SECTION ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. AND THE FRONT SECTION OF THE BUILDING, FACING NORTH WAS TWO STORIES. THIS IS THE CURRENT PLAN WE'RE PROPOSING RIGHT NOW. THIS IS A TWO STORY CLASSROOM WING GYMNASIUM. WE'VE TUCKED STUDENT DINING BEHIND SO THAT WE WERE REDUCING THE OVERALL LENGTH. BOTH OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE COMPLETELY SYMMETRICAL IN PLAN. THIS IS THE SECOND FLOOR. THERE WILL LIKELY BE ONGOING CHANGES IN MOVING SOME SPACES AROUND IT, BUT THE OVERALL FORM OF THE BUILDING MASSING WE'RE SUGGESTING WOULD STAY THE SAME. SO IF I DRAW THIS IS THE CURRENT PLAN THAT I'M WORKING WITH DRAWING OVER TOP OF
[00:30:04]
IT. AND THIS IS WHAT THE ELEVATION THAT I HAVE DONE IS RENDERED OFF OF THIS PLAN. SO THESE ARE THE PREVIOUS ENTRANCES YOU HAD AND COMMENTS THAT YOU HAD GIVEN US FEEDBACK YOU WANTED A MUCH MORE MONUMENTAL ENTRANCE. YOU WANTED THE BUILDING TO BE SYMMETRICAL. THIS WAS THE OVERALL VIEW THAT WE HAD. AND AS OF TODAY, THIS IS CURRENTLY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. SO LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK. WE REALLY WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST KNOW THAT THIS IS TAKING IT IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. WE'VE STEPPED BACK. WE SCRAMBLED QUITE A BIT TO PUT THIS TOGETHER IN JUST A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THAT'S THE REASON WHY YOU'RE LOOKING AT HAND DRAWINGS AT THE MOMENT. WE WANT TO AT LEAST KNOW THAT WE'RE IN THE RIGHT TRACK BEFORE WE START MODELING AGAIN. SO LOOKING FOR COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK THAT YOU MAY HAVE. I ALSO I ALSO DID THIS JUST A BLACK AND WHITE SKETCH OF LOOKING AT IT IN THE COLOR RENDERING. SOMETIMES YOU LOSE A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL. SO.I GUESS I'LL RESPOND SINCE I PROBABLY WAS THE MOST VOCAL AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING. SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BACK TO US. I APPRECIATE YOU RECONSIDERING SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE AT THE LAST MEETING. I DO THINK THIS IS MORE RESPONSIVE TO THE DESIGN PRINCIPLES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, SO I APPRECIATE YOU LOOKING HARDER AT THOSE AT THOSE CONCERNS. I WOULD SAY FROM A MY INITIAL REACTION TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IS FROM A OVERALL CONCEPT, I WOULD SAY THIS CERTAINLY MOVES IN THE DIRECTION THAT I WAS REMARKING ABOUT AND ENCOURAGING YOU TO RECONSIDER. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHERE THAT LEADS. I WOULD SAY I DON'T SEE ANY IMMEDIATE SIGNS THAT THAT WOULD HAVE ME SUGGEST TO YOU THAT YOU NEED TO PIVOT IN A YET AGAIN DIFFERENT DIRECTION. BUT AND YOU'VE SAID THIS, THAT, THAT THESE ARE MERELY CONCEPTS AT THIS POINT. SO I WILL REFRAIN ON COMMENTING ON THE DETAILS OF YOUR ELEVATIONS. BUT I WOULD SAY IT DOES SEEM TO BE ON THE RIGHT TRACK. HOWEVER, I WOULD CAUTION YOU TO PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO YOUR. I'M LOOKING AT THIS VERSION. IT'S A LITTLE EASIER FOR ME TO SEE THAT I WOULD JUST BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT THE HIERARCHY OF ROOF MASSING. YOUR YOUR SIDE WINGS ARE A BIT DIMINUTIVE COMPARED TO THE WINGS THEMSELVES, AND IF I COULD EVER FIGURE OUT HOW TO USE THIS, I WOULD BE ABLE TO. HERE WE GO. NO. THANK YOU. I MAYBE THIS ONE'S BETTER TO POINT TO. OKAY.
SORRY ABOUT THAT. SO IN TERMS OF OVERALL MASSING OF THE CENTER AND I DO APPRECIATE THE ALIGNMENT OF THE SITE PLAN AS IT RELATES TO THE CURRENT DRIVE. SO THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THAT I THINK THE SCALE OF THE CENTER MASS. AND AGAIN I'M GOING TO LIMIT MY COMMENTS VERY SPECIFICALLY IS PERHAPS MORE APPROPRIATE. CERTAINLY ESTABLISHES HIERARCHY. I THINK WHAT I'M SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO IS THE EAVE HEIGHT OF YOUR FLANKING WINGS HERE AND HERE, AS IT RELATES TO THE. RIDGELINE OF THESE, WHAT I WOULD REFER TO AS HYPHEN CONNECTORS HERE AND HERE SEEMS TO BE JUST A LITTLE UNRESOLVED. SO AS YOU STUDY THAT FURTHER, THESE MAY WANT TO GAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE PREFERENCE AND PRESENCE WHEN COMPARED TO THE OVERALL MASSING. THE OTHER COMMENT I WOULD MAKE, I THINK THE WINDOW, THE PALLADIAN WINDOW DOES SEEM TO BE RESPONSIVE. I'LL TRUST THAT THAT ALIGNS WITH THE GYMNASIUM BEHIND AND THAT YOU GUYS ARE DOES. AND SO I WAS PROPOSING LOOKING AT USING CAST STONE FOR THAT DETAILING. IT'S NOT A PLACE WHERE I CAN BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT BEHIND THE HOUSE. SURE. NOT A PLACE WHERE I CAN ACTUALLY PUT PUT A DOOR, PUT WINDOWS. AND THE SAME IS REFLECTIVE. I HAVE A CLASSROOM WALL THAT'S ON THE FIRST FLOOR AT THIS LOCATION. I DON'T ON THE SECOND FLOOR WHERE THAT WINDOW IS SHOWN. FAIR ENOUGH. AND I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION OBJECTION TO CAST STONE, BUT THAT'S OBVIOUSLY A CONVERSATION FOR THE BOARD. ONCE THOSE DETAILS COME INTO FOCUS. THIS IS THIS SORT OF WHAT I'LL CALL DOUBLE HIP ELEVATION IS A LITTLE UNIQUE AND UNCHARACTERISTIC. SO I I'LL, I'LL LEAVE THAT DECISION UP TO YOU AS YOU PROCEED. BUT THAT INITIAL REACTION IS THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WORKING. IT'S
[00:35:03]
CALLING MORE ATTENTION TO THIS VERY NARROW ELEMENT. AND THE SECONDARY ELEMENT IN THE BACK JUST SEEMS TO BE GETTING LOST BETWEEN THE HYPHEN AND THIS APPENDAGE. SO THAT'S MY $0.02 ON THAT. MY LAST REMARK WOULD BE, WELL, I GUESS TWO FINAL REMARKS. ONE PLEASE LOOK CLOSELY AT THE PROPORTIONS OF COLUMN TO HEIGHT RATIOS. THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT IN OUR FINAL REVIEW.AND IT'S OFTEN SOMETHING THAT THIS BOARD HAS HAD TO COMMENT ON WITH OTHER SUBMISSIONS. SO I'D ASK YOU TO MAKE SURE YOU STUDY THE PROPORTIONS CORRECTLY ON THAT. FROM WHAT I SEE THERE, THEY DO LOOK TOO SLENDER FOR THEIR HEIGHT. SO THAT IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING TO CONSIDER FURTHER. AND THEN MY FINAL REMARK IS, I BELIEVE MY COMMENTS WHEN THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED WERE NOT SO INTENDED TO BE SO STRINGENT UPON SYMMETRY. I MEAN, I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE BROUGHT FORWARD THIS EVENING, BUT BALANCE IS MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN SYMMETRY.
THERE'S GOING TO BE CONSIDERATIONS IN ANY DESIGN WHERE YOU MAY HAVE TO BREAK YOUR OWN RULE WHEN IT COMES TO ASYMMETRICAL DESIGN, I DON'T THINK I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE WHOLE BOARD, BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE ARCHITECTURALLY, I THINK AS LONG AS THOSE BREAKS ARE MADE IN A THOUGHTFUL AND CONSIDERATE WAY, PARTICULARLY BEING A 3 OR 4 SIDED DESIGN CONSIDERATION, I'M CERTAINLY OPEN TO THAT. SO I JUST DIDN'T WANT YOU OR YOUR TEAM TO BE TOO OVERLY CONSTRAINED. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE ON WROTE SYMMETRY, WHEN PERHAPS THERE ARE SOME OTHER ACCEPTABLE SOLUTIONS DEPENDING ON HOW THE DESIGN EVOLVES. SO THAT'S WHAT I CAN OFFER. I THINK THOSE ARE GREAT, GREAT COMMENTS. I REALLY LIKE IT. I THINK IT DOES FIT IN THE SPACE PLAN VERY NICELY, AND IT DOES FEEL LIKE IT'S A RELATIVE TO THE OTHER BUILDINGS ON THE CAMPUS. THANK YOU. IT IS AN IMPROVEMENT FOR ME OVER I CAN I CAN'T ARTICULATE ANYWHERE NEAR AS WELL AS MR. MALLETT'S, BUT BUT BUT I LIKE THIS BETTER THAN WHAT I SAW LAST TIME, AND I WORK IN THE COLUMN WITH. THEY'RE ACTUALLY. I DREW THIS UP AT A 16 SCALE. SO IT'S REALLY IT'S REALLY HARD TO GET THOSE PROPORTIONS QUITE RIGHT. AND I JUST WANTED TO BRING IT UP FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION. SO I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THEY NEED TO HAVE SOME MASS WITH THEM. I ACTUALLY STARTED WITH A FOUR FOOT DIAMETER AT THE BASE OF THAT COLUMN. SO I THINK WHEN THEY'RE ACTUALLY RENDERED, YOU'LL SEE THE BEEFINESS WHEN WE MODEL IT A LITTLE BIT MORE, IT'S AND I WOULD, I WOULD CONSIDER IF YOU LOOK AROUND THE COMMUNITY, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE PRIMARILY DORIC OR TUSCAN TREATMENTS WHEN IT COMES TO PROPORTIONS. BUT IF YOU STUDY THE PROPORTIONS OF THOSE SPECIFIC ORDERS, THEY ARE BY FAR THE MOST STOUT. IF YOU WANT TO PURSUE A MORE SLENDER COLUMN, THEN I WOULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT IONIC AND MAYBE CORINTHIAN, BUT I THINK IONIC WOULD NOT BE INAPPROPRIATE IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION. BUT IF YOU DO STICK WITH DORIC ORDER, THEN YOUR PROPORTIONS ARE GOING TO BE LIKE 6 TO 1, 7 TO 1, DEPENDING ON WHETHER YOU GO TUSCAN OR DORIC. AND THAT'S A PRETTY STOUT COLUMN. SO JUST TAKE ALL THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS YOU AS YOU MOVE FORWARD. COULD YOU JUST BRING BACK THE SITE PLAN REAL QUICK? SURE. AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE ROAD THAT CONNECTS IN THE REAR THERE? YEAH. SO THIS THIS IS TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN A SERVICE ROAD. SO IT IS FOR BUS CIRCULATION INTO THE SITE. THIS WOULD BE GATED SO THAT IT WOULDN'T BE USED AT OTHER TIMES. SO THE PRIMARY CIRCULATION FOR PEDESTRIANS AND VISITORS IS THROUGH HERE. SO THIS IS JUST WOULD BE FOR GETTING A DELIVERY ENTRANCE IN HERE TO WHERE THE MECHANICAL YARD IS FOOD SERVICE AND FOR BUS CIRCULATION. OKAY.
SO THE ROAD THAT BRANCHES OFF SERVES AS MECHANICAL ACCESS AND SERVICE ACCESS. YES. SO YOU DO SEE LIKE ADDITIONAL PARKING. WE TRY TO PUSH THIS FARTHER TO THE ROAD AND SPREAD OUT THE PARKING ACROSS THE FRONT TO GIVE US A BETTER WAY TO LINE UP THAT ACCESS. SO IF THERE IS EXTERIOR SPACE, IT WOULD BE ON THE PLAN WEST SIDE BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS, NOT THE EAST SIDE.
CORRECT. OKAY. IS THERE A NECESSITY FOR THIS, OPERATIONALLY SPEAKING, FOR THE SERVICE DRIVE TO BE TEEING OFF THIS THIS DRIVE AT THIS LOCATION? I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF
[00:40:01]
WHAT I WAS IT'S A I KNOW I'M KIND OF CUEING OFF YOUR COMMENT. I, I THINK GIVEN THE EXISTING TREES, THE, THE, THE ADJACENT WETLANDS, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A, AN EXPENSE THAT IS NOT WORTH THE COST. I'D RATHER GO. IT WAS OUR CIVIL ENGINEERS FIRST ATTEMPT WITH THIS SITE PLAN. SO I KNOW SHE WAS TRYING VERY HARD TO AVOID THE WETLANDS THAT ARE HERE, AND THE SCHOOL WANTS TO HAVE A PLAY AREA, SO I THINK WHAT WAS DICTATING IT FOR HER WAS GETTING PLACEMENT OVER THE TURF. IS THERE A REASON, OPERATIONALLY THAT IT CAN'T STUB OFF OF THE BUS DRIVE? I MEAN, I, I THINK YOU'VE GOT CONTROLS IN PLACE IN TERMS OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC SEPARATION. I REALLY DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS A REASON THAT IT CAN'T GO OFF OF THAT. SO IS THAT I WAS I WOULD I WOULD LOOK TO HER ABOUT IT AND REVIEW THAT PRESERVING THIS AREA FOR A SERVICE DRIVE JUST DOESN'T DO IT FOR ME. AS FAR AS TEARING DOWN ANY WOODS IN THAT AREA, I THINK YOU COULD CREATE A BETTER TURF FIELD CONNECTION AND ACCESS IN THE BACK. SO PRETTY SIMPLE. BUT OVERALL I WASN'T HERE LAST TIME, BUT I DID WATCH THE MEETING AND AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT ANDREW SAID. AND I THINK THE DIRECTION HERE IS GREATLY IMPROVED. I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO. I'M JUST LOOKING AT SOME OF THE OTHER SCHOOL IMAGERY AND SEEING SOME DIFFERENCE IN THE BRICK TREATMENT, SOME DIFFERENT COLORS. I THINK THAT'D BE SOMETHING WE'LL LOOK FOR NEXT TIME. SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. HAS THERE BEEN WE DID BRING THIS UP LAST AT OUR LAST REVIEW REGARDING THAT THAT SERVICE DRIVE QUESTIONING ITS POINT OF CONNECTION ON SWICKARD WOODS BOULEVARD. HAS THERE BEEN A TRAFFIC IMPACT DONE ON THAT AREA, AND WHAT WOULD BE THE PROTOCOL IF NOT THERE? THERE'S PROBABLY ONE IN PROGRESS FOR SURE. WE WILL DO ONE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S SITED IN THE RIGHT LOCATION, BUT I DO BELIEVE I THINK THAT'S IN PROGRESS WITH THE PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT.YES. OKAY. I JUST FIND THAT TO BE AN AWKWARD POINT OF CONNECTION. SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. YEAH, IT'S REALLY FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. AND THE SCHOOL TEAM CAN, CAN CORRECT ME.
BUT AGAIN, IT'S REALLY TO SEPARATE THE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC FROM THE BUS TRAFFIC. SO THAT WILL BE PRIMARILY USED FOR BUSSES TURNING RIGHT INTO THAT. SO THEY CAN BE COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM ANYONE THAT'S TRYING TO DROP OFF OR PICK UP THEIR KIDS THROUGH THE MAIN LOOP UP TOP. YEAH. UNDERSTOOD. I JUST WITH THE WITH THE ENTRY AND EXIT FROM THE HIGH SCHOOL AND THEN ALSO THE ENTRY AND EXIT TO THE EXISTING ELEMENTARY CAMPUS. THAT ROAD GETS VERY CONGESTED DURING NORMAL SCHOOL HOURS. SO THAT'S OPERATIONALLY THAT'S MY CONCERN. I DO FIND IT UNFORTUNATE THAT IT'S CUTTING THROUGH THOSE WOODS, BUT I THINK MY BIGGER CONCERN IS, IS THE OPERATIONS OKAY? YEAH. AND I THINK PROBABLY AND I LET THE SCHOOL SPEAK TO THIS, BUT I THINK WE'VE PROBABLY GOTTEN SIMILAR SAME CONCERNS ABOUT THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC UP INTO THE ELC AREA AND GENERAL AS WELL. SO I THINK THAT THAT ADDITIONAL ACCESS OFF OF FODOR IS AN ATTEMPT TO PREEMPT SOME OF THOSE ISSUES THAT MAY HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. SO BUT I, YOU KNOW, AGREE IT IS A BALANCING ACT. AND WE'LL CERTAINLY TAKE THAT IN CONSIDERATION. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY? I JUST WANT TO SAY THANKS TO SHAW AND THE SCHOOL FOR WORKING SO DILIGENTLY WITH SOME OF OUR OTHER PARTNERS TO MAKE SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DESIGN. IT'S ALWAYS A VERY CAREFUL BALANCE BETWEEN ESTHETICS AND COST, AND I KNOW THE SCHOOL IS BEING VERY CAREFUL ON THE COST SIDE, BUT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THAT BALANCE SOMETIMES GETS A LITTLE OUT OF PROPORTION. AND I THINK THIS PLAN SHOWS A LITTLE BIT MORE BALANCE IN THAT APPROACH. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
[VIII. Poll members for comment]
APPRECIATE IT. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR OTHER OBSERVATIONS FROM THE BOARD? AS AS I SAY EVERY MEETING, IT'S A PLEASURE TO SERVE WITH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU. I THINK WE'VE GOT A VERY, VERY GOOD BOARD AND THAT IS ALL DUE TO COUNSEL AND WISDOM AND MAKING THE APPOINTMENTS. SO DO WE HAVE A CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. MISS MOORE. YES, MR. YES. MR. YES. MR. STROLLER. YES. MR. MOUSE YES. MOTION PASSES. GOOD NIGHT. THANK YOU EVERYBODY.* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.