Joanna Boulton asked that a correction be made to the last paragraph of Page 4 so as to read: “A discussion regarding construction hours and when the lot would be used ensued. It was determined that the lot could be used beginning at 6:30 a.m. as long as the trucks were not idling at all.” The minutes were then approved, as amended, after having been previously distributed to each member.

2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – WALK UP ATM – 8100 FORSYTH BOULEVARD

Robert Lieb, representing the general contractor, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes reminded the members that this project was first presented to them on November 6, 2017 and was continued to a future meeting. The applicant has since revised the location and design of the walk-up ATM machine. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection between Forsyth Boulevard and Parkside Drive. The property has a zoning designation of C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. The property contains a two-story bank building with a drive-through. The existing drive-through ATM and teller machines are legal non- conforming uses and therefore additional machines or lanes cannot be added. The proposed walk- up ATM is considered an accessory to the bank use, which is permitted in the C-1 zoning district and therefore, does not impact the legal non-conforming status of the drive-through. The applicant proposes to locate the walk-up ATM in an existing courtyard south of the building at the intersection between Forsyth Boulevard and Parkside Drive. A new concrete pad for the machine will be installed off of the existing concrete walkway. The applicant also proposes new landscaping around the machine and walkway and the removal of three existing trees. The ATM machine will appear similar to the existing drive-through ATM machine located northwest of the building. Plans submitted by the applicant show the machine in two color schemes. The first color scheme matched the machine previously proposed with red sides, a white front and back and a grey overhang. The second color scheme has beige sides, a white front and back and a grey overhang. Both options have two recessed lights located in the machine overhang. An approximately 2.7 square foot sign is located on the front of the machine, facing Forsyth Boulevard, and on the rear of the machine, facing Parkside Drive. The sign depicts the name of the bank and the logo and will not be illuminated. An existing retaining wall located along the front of the building will be extended to wrap the southeast corner of the building and create a level space for the ATM machine. The extended portion of the wall will use the same material as the existing wall. The applicant is proposing three new exterior lights along with the ATM. One light is proposed mounted to the southern wall of the building, approximately 7.5 feet above grade. One single light pole is proposed along the walkway between the sidewalk and the machine. One double light pole is proposed southwest of the machine. The proposed pole lights are 15 feet tall. The proposed walk-up ATM will be highly visible due to the location. The same concerns of the previous proposal remain with respect to the potential visual impact at the corner. Staff does not feel the addition of a walk-up ATM will enhance the site, but rather would have a negative visual impact. The proposed machine will distract from the unique features of the bank building and will not add to the landscape transition zone at this intersection. Staff does not support the removal of trees. The existing tree located just south of the proposed ATM machine is one of the most mature trees on site. This tree contributes to the transition zone between the park and residential area to the south and west and the commercial area to the east. It appears this tree is being removed due to the proposed double light pole. Staff believes that the tree should be saved and the proposed pole is not necessary. The existing tree just east of the building is not located adjacent to any proposed construction. Staff does not understand the reasoning for removing this tree. The third tree to be removed is located within the walkway circle and staff recognizes the need for site distance around

Staff does not understand the reasoning for removing this tree. The third tree to be removed is located within the walkway circle and staff recognizes the need for site distance around

3 the proposed machine for safety reasons; however, staff feels the machine would be more appropriately located elsewhere. Two pole lights and a wall light are proposed on the site. An existing pole light is located just south of the proposed single light pole. The ATM machine also has recessed lighting in the canopy. Staff feels that the lighting proposed is excessive and that the additional pole lights will negatively contribute to the character of this corner. Director Istenes noted that staff does not support the proposed walk-up ATM as proposed. At the previous meeting, the Architectural Review Board discussed the location of a previous ATM machine near the northwest corner of the building. Staff would support the location of the beige colored ATM in that area. The existing lighting for the drive-through and parking area could support the new ATM and additional lighting would not be required. The alternate location would also result in saving the trees and maintaining the existing character of the corner. With that in mind, staff recommends approval with the following conditions:

The proposed sign will be located approximately 21 feet above grade and bracket-mounted to the brick facade. The proposed location is above the first floor windows.

4 Based on the tenant’s location within a multi-tenant office building, the following sign is be permitted by the Sign Code: “Ground floor office tenants with a substantial glass wall or window area and street frontage may erect a wall sign 12 square feet in area, but not more than 2 such signs shall be permitted for each building frontage.” The proposed sign is the only wall sign on the west elevation; however, the proposed sign is 24.97 square feet and therefore requires a sign modification. While the proposed sign is larger than allowed by the Sign Code, the sign will appear compatible in terms of scale with the building. An existing wall sign located around the corner from the proposed sign is similar in size and style to the proposed sign. The building is located on a corner, and therefore can have wall signs on both street frontages. The proposed sign is also higher off of the ground due to the change in grade and the location of the first floor. The proposed sign is constructed of a high quality material. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the proposed sign is compatible with surrounding buildings and wall signs in terms of design, material and size and recommends approval as requested.

Mr. Kirchhoff stated that they believe the sign to be tasteful and size appropriate. He added that staff’s report was accurate and asked if there were any questions.

Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the former Bancorp sign is gone.

Scott Wilson commented that the proposed sign is nice looking.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the sign/modification as requested. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – FRONT YARD WALL - 8045 WATKINS

Lakmipthi Rayalacheruvu, owner, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the applicant is seeking retroactive approval for the replacement of a retaining wall along the southwest corner of the house; the wall ranges in height from 6 inches to 1.5 feet and is constructed of a modular stone system. The Architectural Review Board prefers the use of masonry walls in front yards; however, modular block walls are allowed if they include three different block sizes, color variation and tumbled edges. The proposed design and material of the retaining wall does feature a varying color pallet as required by the Architectural Review Guidelines; however, only one size of stone was used. The location of the wall is perpendicular to the public sidewalk and setback from the sidewalk. Additionally, the new wall supports existing planting beds in the front yard. Staff is of the opinion that the wall is compatible with neighborhood character and the existing house and recommends approval with the condition that three different size blocks be incorporated into the wall system.

Mr. Rayalacheruvu stated that he did not know approval by the City was needed and that at its highest point, the wall is only 18-inches.

Mr. Rayalacheruvu stated that he did not know approval by the City was needed and that at its highest point, the wall is only 18-inches.

5

Chairman Lichtenfeld informed the owner that the three different size blocks does not include the cap.

Joanne Boulton asked if the reason for the varying size blocks is for aesthetics.

Chairman Lichtenfeld replied “yes”.

Joanne Boulton asked if the wall is a dry stack wall.

Mr. Rayalacheruvu replied “yes”.

William Liebermann suggested allowing him to keep the bottom layer.

Chairman Lichtenfeld agreed.

Mr. Rayalacheruvu asked how much time he can have to change out the wall.

Chairman Lichtenfeld replied “one month”. He asked if it will have to be inspected.

Anna Krane replied “yes”.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve per staff recommendations (utilization of 3 different sized blocks); allowing the base layer (below grass line) to remain as installed. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ZONING REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW VET CLINICS AS CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES IN COMMERCIALLY ZONED DISTRICTS

Ron Reim made a motion open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the members.

Susan Istenes explained that currently, veterinary services are not defined or listed as permitted uses in any zoning districts; however, there is an existing veterinary clinic within the City. Because veterinary services are not listed in the regulations, any new animal hospitals or changes to the existing hospital would not be allowed. The existing animal hospital would like to expand the practice, which has triggered the code amendment process. The ideal location for veterinary services is in proximity to residential neighborhoods; however, operational characteristics of the businesses are more compatible with commercial districts than residential. Hours of operation, noise generation and traffic impacts of veterinary service businesses would likely align with other