Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-14-1995 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - MARCH 14, 1995 Members Present: Cliff Chisholm Kim Walker John DeHaas Maire O 'Neill Roger Cruwys Staff Present: Therese Berger Dale Beland Debbie Arkell Patrick Morris Visitors Present: Mike Potter Eugene Vodj ansky Rick Kerin Chris Gysler Jeff Downhour Hilary Dustin Pat Robbins Doug Mosely Linda Bell Katherine Williams Dale Williams Greg Vidmar Project Review 1 . Nelson PUD Planner Beland reviewed the proposal and explained the open space link to the development to the north. He asked for direction and comments from the Board on the architectural guidelines per Section 10 of the submittal and read the suggested guidelines modifications from the Staff Report. Roger Cruwys asked how Staff feels about establishing the design guidelines at the PUD level whereby the applicant wouldn' t come back for review. Planner Beland responded that he supports the PUD concept if the architectural guidelines are defined clearly and presented in a way that assures ease of administration. Maire O'Neill questioned Items "I" and "J" in the staff recommendations regarding paving. She suggested that there might be some nice alternatives for paving besides asphalt and concrete. Planner Beland remarked that since no City agency would have the opportunity to review the alternative, the condition would ensure that the material used will be durable. He remarked that if the owner and Homeowner ' s Association wish to suggest different materials, they would be able to bring forward with a modification to the architectural guidelines for the driving isles and parking areas . He added that any other materials could be approved by the Planning Director and CDR. Maire O'Neill confirmed with Planner Beland that the development will have no private streets . Roger Cruwys questioned the length of time allowed for completion of the landscaping requirements . Planner Beland indicated that three years is standard. Maire O 'Neill questioned Item 18 of the architectural guidelines regarding exterior lighting. She remarked that she assumes direct light sources would include neon tubing and suggested a limit be placed on the milliamps . Planner Beland indicated that the condition could tie in the zone code limitations on light source intensity. Kim Walker congratulated the applicant and engineer on a beautiful project, especially in regards to the open space design. Maire O 'Neill asked if the architectural guidelines for the subject project are identical to the Valley Commons project. Mike Potter responded to the affirmative and noted the exception of the private street in Valley Commons . Maire O'Neill moved, seconded by Kim Walker, to recommend approval of the PUD per staff recommendations, including a revision to Item "J" to require that any other paving materials shall be approved by the CDR and the Planning Director, and a revision to Item 6, page 18 of the architectural guidelines to require that any direct lighting be in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 2 . Security Bank Planner Arkell reviewed revisions to the original submittal which address most of the issues noted in the original staff report. She remarked that Planning Staff recommends approval with the condition that the applicant submit a scaled drawing of the sign for review and approval by Staff . Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by John DeHaas, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the subject project per staff conditions. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present . 3 . Robbins COA Planner Morris reviewed the proposal and indicated that the applicant wishes to abandon the porch enclosure portion the project. He asked that the DRB take action on the garage addition proposal . Cliff Chisholm confirmed that Planning is recommending a discernable break between the existing garage and the extension. Planner Morris remarked that the applicant would be replacing all of the siding. Maire O'Neill commented that she does not support shifting the addition a half of a plane as recommended by the Historic Preservation Officer. Planner Morris remarked that the Secretary of Interior standards suggest incorporating a discernable break. Cliff Chisholm said that although he understands why the Secretary of Interior standards encourage such a break; he feels that, due to its size, the less attention the addition draws to itself the better. Greg Mosely suggested that the garage would look much better without a break. Cliff Chisholm commented that the deviation for the garage setback should be allowed because the garage addition fits the historical pattern of the neighborhood and existing garage. Maire O 'Neill moved, seconded by Kim Walker, to approve the proposal with condition #1 and the deletion of condition #2, and to recommend approval of the deviation for encroachment into the setback. 4 . Williams COA Planner Morris reviewed the proposal and indicated that Staff is recommending approval without any conditions . He remarked that the proposal is fine example of what can be done to a historical building. Roger Cruwys and Kim Walker indicated that they had no comments . Maire O 'Neill asked for clarification of the deviation. Planner Morris explained the two proposed deviations and commented that the site has unusual existing characteristics which limit the footprint possibilities . He indicated that the garage addition will maintain the historical integrity of the structure. He added that he recommends approval of the deviations due to the high quality of the design and characteristics of the site. Maire O'Neill moved, seconded by John DeHaas, to approve the proposal as submitted and to recommend approval for the deviations . Kim Walker questioned the ease at which Staff has recommended approval for deviations . Planner Morris explained that the quality of design, the limitations of the site, and the fact that there is a rather large separation from the adjacent property owner are reasons for support of the setback deviations . Cliff Chisholm commented that part of the flexibility built into the review process is to identify patterns of historical neighborhoods that don' t comply with code and to recognize attempts to maintain the historical integrity of the structures and surrounding neighborhoods. Maire O'Neill commented that she feels the project is well done and the rear yard addition is not on a primary elevation. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present . 5 . Penwell COA Maire O'Neill moved, seconded by Roger Cruwys, to open and continue the project until March 28, 1995 . The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 6 . Blackwood II Maire O'Neill moved, seconded by Roger Cruwys, to open and continue the project until March 28, 1995 . The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present.