Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-02 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Henry Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Bill Hanson Susan Kozub, Assistant Planner Henry Sorenson Karin Caroline, Assistant Planner Dick Pohl Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Dawn Smith Nichole Wills Jim Raznoff Visitors Present David Palagi Dave MacDonald Gene Mikolio Leah Shute Van Bryan ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2002 Chairperson Sorenson called for corrections or additions to the minutes of April 9, 2002. Discussion followed on the reference to the drawing Bill Hanson had faxed to the DRB. Mr. Hanson clarified that the sketch presented at the meeting was the one he sent; however, the design proposed at the meeting was not the one he had sent her. MOTION: Mr. Raznoff moved, Mr. Pohl seconded, to approve the minutes as presented, with comments made above. The motion carried unanimously. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Lucky Dog Saloon CUP #Z-02044 (Kozub) 1104 East Main Street * A Conditional Use Permit Application to construct an addition to the existing restaurant for a gaming room with 14 machines and a saloon for serving alcoholic beverages. Leah Shute and Van Bryan, applicant’s architects, and Dave Palagi, Lucky Dog Saloon, joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Susan Kozub presented the Staff Report, and reviewed the recommended Staff conditions. Ms. Shute presented the project, referring to it as an “infill project”, a facility that would allow beverage consumption and gaming. She noted, due to budget constraints, they haven’t included additional design elements and fenestration on these plans. She noted they have worked on the screening issue and may be relocating some of the rooftop equipment so the only screening needed will be cupolas for the exhaust fans. She noted they are concerned with having to put too much weight on the roof for screening. She stated the applicant intends to tie the two structures together with roof forms and similar elevation treatments. Mr. Hanson asked if the units would have two names and if new signage would be added. Ms. Shute stated the two businesses will have different names and new signage will be proposed. Mr. Hanson asked for the dimensions of the gaming room and the restaurant. Ms. Shute noted the location of the addition in relation to the restaurant, and noted parking requirements were not increased as the outdoor seating area is being eliminated. Mr. Hanson asked for the definition of a casino, which Planner Kozub noted was 15 or more gaming machines or the name “casino” on signage, advertising, etc. Mr. Hanson asked if there would be any other outdoor seating proposed. Ms. Shute noted the outdoor space was added initially to allow for future expansion. Mr. Pohl asked for explanation of the internal traffic, which Ms. Shute provided. Ms. Wills asked where the new signage would be located, which Planner Kozub indicated on plan. Ms. Shute noted they are considering a monument sign to replace one of the building mounted signs; however, she stated the additional signage would meet the sign code. Ms. Smith asked if the restaurant would also serve beer and wine. Ms. Shute noted it would and food would be served in the Lucky Dog Saloon. Ms. Smith asked if both establishments would be smoke-free. Ms. Shute noted the Lucky Dog would allow smoking and the restaurant would remain smoke free. In response to Ms. Smith’s question about the doorway to the patio, Ms. Shute stated the door would be used by wait staff to serve the saloon. Ms. Smith asked if windows could be incorporated along the north elevation to allow natural lighting. Ms. Shute noted if incorporated, the windows would be smoked glass and would give a different impression than the windows in the restaurant. Mr. Raznoff asked if the screening depicted was what the applicant proposed. Ms. Shute stated they are revisiting the screening, and exploring the idea of relocating the large mechanical masses behind the proposed parapets with only the exhaust fans screened by cupolas. Chairperson Sorenson noted it was awkward to review and make a recommendation on plans that didn’t include a definite design for the rooftop screening. He asked if patrons enter or leave by the door on the west side of the building. Mr. Bryan noted the door is situated between a wait station and another feature. Chairperson Sorenson asked the applicant to respond to the suggestions by Staff. Ms. Shute noted they have included a more prominent gable form over the main entrance with a transom element for natural lighting. Chairperson Sorenson asked if any usable outdoor space was available for use during warmer temperatures, and if Staff had concerns if there was none. Planner Kozub noted the Design Objectives Plan calls for outdoor seating for restaurants in the Entryway Corridor. She noted the site was rather constrained. Mr. Hanson stated he wanted to see more detailing along the exterior wall, not necessarily in the form of windows, to soften it. He noted exterior lighting has to add to the building. He stated the loss of the outdoor seating is regrettable; however, if the two handicapped stalls were shifted to the south, a plaza/seating area could be included. He asked if the huge mechanical equipment would be moved. Ms. Shute noted they plan to move most it to the back of the rooftop, behind the parapet wall. Mr. Hanson noted he would support the original proposal, including surrounding the equipment with open-topped walls with details to match the existing structure. He noted the addition fits well with the rest of the structure. He noted an additional condition should be added that requires all signage meet code provisions and be approved by Staff. He asked where the huge cooler would be located. Ms. Shute indicated its proposed location behind a parapet. Mr. Hanson noted the mechanical equipment would be visible from the street, since this is a one-story building. Ms. Shute noted it would also be visible from the Buggy Bath. Mr. Hanson asked where all the roof drainage would flow. Ms. Shute noted it flows to the back of the structure. Mr. Pohl noted the loss of the outdoor dining space includes the loss of the landscaping. He’d like to see the landscaping replaced in another location. Ms. Shute noted it would be replaced and the trees moved with lattice and vines added. Mr. Pohl noted he was uncomfortable with trying to approve plans that are too vague and changing as they go. He stated he was unsure the angles of the entrance may not meet ADA standards. Ms. Will concurred with Mr. Pohl. She was uncomfortable commenting on drawings that weren’t finalized. Ms. Smith commented that the selling point for the East Side Diner was that it was an economical, family, non-smoking diner. She noted she couldn’t support the loss of the outdoor dining area without it being mitigated. She was uncomfortable with the possible changes that were proposed. Mr. Raznoff noted he was not in support of losing the outdoor dining space. He stated he was more comfortable with the east elevation with the addition of the fenestration as suggested by DRB. He noted he is not comfortable voting on something being presented at the meeting. Chairperson Sorenson noted he felt a motion could be phrased to include the design shown today. He noted he was comfortable with the design shown today; however, he didn’t feel the proposed screening would be adequate for the equipment mounted on the roof. He noted, though it is a compromise, and it was better than the massive equipment mounted on the roof with a giant cupola over it. He stated he has mixed feelings about the space taken by the gaming room. He suggested including eating spaces in the landscaping areas, if there was room. He noted he concurred with placing vines on the exterior wall. He commended the design of the site; however, he’d like to see outdoor seating included, if possible. Mr. Hanson noted Staff’s condition #4 addressed most of DRB’s concerns. He stated the applicant’s drawing presented today represented their response to condition #4. Mr. Bryan asked if the DRB were to strongly recommend the sacrificing of parking to install outdoor seating, would the Board recommend a parking deviation. Planner Kozub noted, since the project had been noticed, it would require time to re-notice prior to the City Commission hearing. DRB members noted they have recommended approval of a deviation without re-noticing. Planner Kozub noted the deviation could not become part of the application without re-noticing. Mr. Bryan suggested moving the handicapped spaces closer to the entrance to make room for outdoor seating. Discussion followed on the addition of a doorway on the west elevation; however, it was noted indoor seating would be lost. Mr. Raznoff noted that the problem was that the drawings presented to the DRB would be different from those presented to City Commission. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Pohl seconded, to recommend approval of application #Z-02044 with conditions as outlined by Staff, and to recommend approval of a deviation to reduce the number of parking stalls by three to allow an outdoor seating area where the handicapped stalls were indicated near the front entrance, subject to noticing requirements. Ms. Smith asked if the DRB should specify the number of parking spaces or allow up to a 20% reduction if the applicant chooses. MOTION: Ms. Smith moved to amended the motion, seconded by Ms. Wills, to allow up to a 20% allowable reduction of parking spaces if the applicant chooses. The amendment carried unanimously. The motion carried unanimously. 2. MacDonald Apts Concept PUD #Z-02054 (Caroline) 2211 Remington Way * A Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Application for the development of four (4) two story 12-plexes with basements, and related site improvements. Dave MacDonald and Lowell Springer joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Karin Caroline presented the Staff Memo. Mr. Springer noted the zoning regulation amendments approved last night by the City Commission would allow the proposed density. He stated the City anticipates the rest of the subdivision to be a dense commercial use. Chairperson Sorenson asked why they are doing this project as a PUD. Mr. MacDonald noted the PUD allows an increase of density by 6-8 units per acre. Chairperson Sorenson noted the project was a straightforward design, with the buildings being copies of one another with no enhancement of design. He suggested widening the central corridors so they can be used by the residents. He noted the structures are okay; however, the scale of the entrances was rather small and under emphasized. He stated he liked the street front design along Remington Way. Mr. Raznoff noted that the central corridors were located where there would be bedroom windows and the buildings are quite close to each other. He stated he’d like to see more separation. He noted the courtyard and east/west pathway should be enhanced to promote usage. He suggested they consider the installation of bike racks. He suggested more building separation between the two northern and two southern structures. He suggested moving the front entrances out five feet into the front yard setback. Planner Caroline noted she would research the differences between the zone code and UBC on building separation. Mr. Raznoff noted he would support moving the structures closer to Remington Way. Ms. Smith concurred with Mr. Raznoff’s suggestion on moving the entrances into the front yard setbacks. She asked if the number of parking spaces was more than the minimum requirement. Mr. Springer noted the number of parking spaces meets the code; however, they can’t count on having on-street parking for the overflow during the daytime. Ms. Smith suggested moving the two parking nodes together and moving the disabled spaces closer to the entrances. Mr. Springer noted the disabled spaces were located as close to the grade entrances as possible. Ms. Wills suggested the applicant design three “U” shaped buildings to provide more open space/courtyard between them for the residents’ use. She suggested the open end should face the Bridgers (north) rather than South 19th Avenue. She stated if the “U” shaped buildings wouldn’t work, she suggested the installation of another sidewalk to the parking area to create more of a mall area. She suggested the applicant use different materials to enhance the structures. She suggested more architectural detail and green space are needed to enhance the project. Mr. Pohl concurred that the central space is too narrow. He suggested if the applicant was after more density, then one structure should be removed and add stories to the remaining structures. Mr. Springer noted the addition of more stories would require sprinklering of them and the installation of elevators. Mr. Pohl suggested if the buildings were juxtaposed for closure, they wouldn’t conduct wind into the central space/tunnels. He concurred with the suggestion for more detailing on the facades and material changes to make them different from the structures on College (Brookside Apartments). Mr. Hanson concurred with the need for more space in the courtyard. He suggested adding retaining walls, which would allow the structures to be moved closer to the north and west property lines, and would allow the pathway to meander through the courtyard. He suggested creating grander entryways using lighting features. ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Design Review Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m. __________________________________________ Henry Sorenson, Jr., Chairperson Design Review Board