Architectural Review Board Meeting   2/7/2022

Do ARB members have anything to disclose?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Not for me either.

Carolyn, are there any members of the public that want to make a comment about a project that is not on the agenda for review today?

No, sir, not at this time.

One second.

Are you viewing the slideshow?

Staff recommends approval of the conference assigned plan with the changes listed in the staff report and changes to the hookaholic wall sign to be consistent with the approved conference assigned plan.

I'd be happy to answer any questions you all may have.

Frank Hancock, do you have any questions for Chris?

Just to verify, the Segura Solar was just an example used in the staff report of a previous application, is that correct?

It hasn't been approved yet, so it hasn't been installed, but it will be, or I guess once revisions are submitted, it will be installed on the east elevation of the building.

I don't have any other questions.

Thank you.

Frank, do you have any other questions?

Thanks.

Thanks for your report, Chris.

I don't have any questions either.

So I guess.

Chris, who's your applicant?

He's muted still.

I'm not sure.

Do they have a presentation?

Do you have a presentation or?

But I don't have any kind of presentation or anything regarding the CSP.

Dave?

No, thank you, Chris.

Carolyn, are there any members of the public that want to comment?

I don't have anybody with their hand up.

Frank Stoner, do you have any comments?

So yeah, I don't really have any other thoughts or comments.

Dave?

I think Chris and Margaret's recommendations seem consistent with the ordinance and appropriate to the architecture, so I support that recommendation.

But no, I don't have anything in addition to that.

I thought the proposal from staff was pretty reasonable.

So do we have a recommended motion?

Are you able to see the word documents?

Yeah, thank you.

The second motion would be for the individual alcoholic sign.

Is anybody willing to make a motion on the first item?

490 Westfield Road with revisions noted in the staff report.

All right.

Mr. Stoner, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Henningsen, Mr. Van Der Werf,

Would anyone like to move for the second item?

And number two, the sign design must be revised to follow the approved CSP criteria.

Carolyn, are you ready to do the vote?

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Mr. Henningsen?

Aye.

Mr. Van Der Werf?

Aye.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Are you able to see the PowerPoint slide?

Yes, thank you.

And I'm happy to try to answer any questions that you might have.

Dave?

No, thank you, Margaret, for the presentation.

Frank Stoner?

It looked like some of the paneling was white, some is stone.

Are you able to see the elevation drawing?

Yeah, now I can.

in this version, but I think the white is the color that's proposed.

Gotcha.

Is the applicant here and ready to make a presentation?

But I'll let you make the initial statement, and then I'll go back to any architectural discussion we'll have.

Is there anything else that I could maybe help try to shed some light, maybe?

Dave, do you have any questions for the applicant?

No, thank you very much, Chris.

All right, I don't have any questions either.

And so we, you know, that's what we want to do here is we're to make it a win-win for all parties and make sure that we, at the end of the day, when we walk away from it, everybody's happy to say, yeah, we did what was good for the project and for the county.

IFAS in a contemporary look that we are trying to achieve versus brick which makes it more traditional.

you know, Neela just expressed.

So Carolyn, are there any members of the public who want to comment on this project?

No, sir, not at this time.

Dave, do you have any comments?

Thank you.

Frank Stoner, do you have any comments?

And Margaret, I don't know if you could just comment on that briefly.

It's more typical to have a parapet, to actually have the building be doing the screening rather than adding a screen to do the screening, if that makes sense.

I understand.

OK.

And obviously, we'll have to go through the list of recommendations in detail, but I don't have any further comments.

Mara, can we look at the recommended motion?

List of comments for the final site minutes in the middle.

Does anyone have any justice edits?

Go ahead.

I think three and four, in my opinion, should be eliminated.

I think item seven.

Otherwise, you know, we'll raise the parapet to provide screening.

That could end up feeling sort of awkward.

And that could be included with the next meeting at your next meeting where you'll be reviewing the project.

So I maybe just say, consider providing a site section.

Do you want it to be considered providing a site section to verify visibility of equipment and screens?

All right.

OK, I thought your comment was appropriate that the white, the matching, the window color might actually improve the overall look.

A visualization that shows more accurately what's proposed.

Sufficient?

That sounds good to me.

Yeah.

I think all the other comments are standard lighting and landscaping comments.

All right, well, is anyone ready to make a motion?

items three and four removed item seven is revised to read revise the roof plan to show the location of roof screens consider providing a site section clarifying the visibility of the equipment in the screens item eight is amended to read provide an illustration we're accurately showing the color of the grill panels and all other comments are as originally written

Second.

I think we're ready for a vote.

Mr. Stoner.

Aye.

Mr. Van Der Werf.

Aye.

Mr. Henningsen.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Approval of initial site plan with assumption that the development issues arising from the easements on the site are resolved.

I'd be happy to try to answer any questions.

Thanks, Chris.

Frank Hancock, do you have any questions?

Thanks, Chris.

Frank Stoner.

He's in the attendees.

Well, Dave, do you have any questions?

No, thank you, Chris.

Frank Stoner, do you have any questions for Chris?

Glad to be back with you.

Yes, we are.

Thanks.

Dave, do you have any questions for the applicant?

Have you considered whether you still need the gable in the current design?

Thank you.

Frank Stoner.

What are the columns made of and how are those canopies detailed?

And from a detailed perspective, it could be a smooth composite board as well, but something that certainly riffs off the eave line that's happening up on the roof form.

That's all I had.

Thank you.

Carolyn, are there any members of the public that would like to comment?

No, sir, not at this time.

Frank Stoner, do you have any comments?

Thanks again.

Dave, do you have any comments?

Appreciate all the effort going into that.

Frank Hancock.

I think you've done a great job, so thank you.

I think it seems like you really took the comments to heart and it's just a great improvement.

So if we could look at the recommended motion

Are you able to see the word documents?

Yes, thank you.

The recommendation is to recommend approval of the initial plan, standard condition about maintaining grading outside of lines of trees to remain, and then the list of comments to be addressed with the final submittal.

And does anybody have any modifications?

I'm sure that's not what they'll end up with, but.

I didn't really think about what material would be there.

Any other comments or additions?

Yes, would anybody like to make a motion?

for the final site plan submittal item A, provide a detail of the porch, for the porch on the EC side of the building.

I'll second.

All right, we can move to a vote.

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Mr. Henningsen?

Aye.

Thank you.

We appreciate you coming back.

Would anyone care to move to adopt the January 18th, 2021 ARB minutes?

We'll correct the time.

I think it was 103.

But I want to move with that revision for approval.

So if we could put it to a vote.

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Mr. Henningsen?

Aye.

Mr. Van Der Werf?

Aye.

Thank you.

Same channel.

I was just interested to ask Margaret if any applications have been received for the open seat.

That would be the earliest we could get additional information.

And you were going to look into it.

I did, yes, and I confirmed with the County Attorney's Office if we start the meeting with a quorum and one or more members have to recuse themselves from a particular item due to a conflict of interest, we can continue to review that particular item even if those numbers get reduced.

I think that would continue even to just one if three out of four were recused.

I'm hoping that we don't get to that point.

Yeah, I guess that would be, even a two, it feels a little dicey.

Hopefully we'll get that position filled so we'll have a little more flexibility.

I am aware of one application, but I'm sure there are others.

Well, it's 2.10 PM, so we will adjourn until March 7th.

Thank you all.