08/23/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Value City Furniture, 4700 Great Northern Blvd, (V6VRD 4) Proposal consists of exterior modifications to existing building. Note: Variances are required. Planning Commission tabled the proposal on 7/26/05. The Architectural Review Board addressed this proposal on 8/17/05. The proposal consists of exterior modifications to the former Dick's location in Olmsted Plaza on Great Northern Boulevard. The applicant appeared before the Architectural Review Board on August 17, 2005. The applicant presented two schemes to the Board, one with a brick base and piers and EIFS and a second with painted block and less brick. The ARB strongly felt that the brick/EIFS version was superior to the block version. In particular they objected to painting block and felt the additional brick enhanced the proposal. A number of additional recommendations were made, including: • The brick should be a darker earth tone color to offer more contrast • The two horizontal canopies on the side windows shall be adjusted so there is about 2' offset between the side canopies and the center canopy • Two store front exit doors are to be painted to match the brick color • The vertical piers have a coping to match the color of the EIFS • Add accent light fixtures to the vertical piers • Add planters to the store front, either in the concrete or have them be raised • Incorporate bike racks into their store front Amended plans have been submitted showing these requested changes. Previously, the Planning Commission had requested the property owner to improve or repair the rear fence. In communication with the property owner's representative, he indicated this repair has taken place and that painting has yet to occur. Ms. Wenger indicated that the City would appreciate a greater commitment by the property owner in regards to the proposed streetscape improvements. Ms. Wenger recommends that the Planning Commission consider this proposal and forward it to the Board of Zoning Appeals for consideration of variances. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated a special permit is required for altering the non-conforming building. The applicant will be adding to the wall and raising the roof over the receiving dock. A customer pick up area in the rear is planned as well as putting an awning on the back. Two variances are required, one for a wall sign larger than code permits and one for a 4 foot height variance for a sign higher than code permits. In addition, the applicant has submitted plans showing accent lighting on the front of the building. He instructed the Planning Commission can approve this as non-essential lighting rather than have it be sent to Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Durbin advised that items listed in their July 21St letter have not been addressed, nor have they received further detailed site plans. Mr. O'Malley reviewed that the Planning Commission's consideration of variance issues is more in relation to planning than the BZA's. He informed the Commission if the approved set of plans does not include a reference to streetscaping then there is no assurance that the landowner will return with a proposal. The dilemma is once the proposal is approved, there will be no requirement to return unless it is described and conditions are imposed in a motion. Being that Value City is a substantial tenant in the center there is a relationship between this tenant's proposal and landscape improvements that are 5