Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-1995 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1995 Members Present: Cliff Chisholm Roger Cruwys Kim Walker Maire O'Neill Mara-Gai Katz Staff Present: Therese Berger Debbie Arkell Dave Skelton Patrick Morris Lanette Windemaker Visitors Present: Mitchell Koury Dave Grigsby Gerry Gaston Dennis Downing Ursula Neese Paul Ellis Bob Gilbert, Locati Architects Discussion Items 1 . Robert's Rules of Order After a general discussion regarding the "Guideline for Following Roberts Rules of Order" , Cliff Chisholm asked if a motion can be amended after it has been passed. Planner Arkell explained that any changes would become a separate motion and, if a member takes issue with the motion, he/she should voice concerns prior to the vote on the motion. She explained that, after a motion has been made, the discussion following the motion should be strictly on that motion. Roger Cruwys confirmed that if there is no second to a motion, it becomes dead. Maire O 'Neill confirmed the possibility of a member immediately moving to deny a project he/she had a very strong feeling against to avoid the situation where it is discussed for a prolonged period of time and then denied anyway. Cliff Chisholm asked if a motion can be made to stop a discussion. Planner Arkell noted the "postpone indefinitely" option that could be used to kill a motion, but should be used stating reasons why. Maire O'Neill questioned at which point the applicant could contribute to the discussion without dominating the discussion. Kim Walker suggested that the applicant be allowed only to respond to questions brought up by the Board. After a general discussion, the Board generally agreed to the following sequence of events : 1) staff briefly reviews the project without reading the staff report and conditions; 2) the Board discusses the project; 3) the Board allows the applicant to respond to specific issues; 4) the Board closes the public portion of the meeting; and 5) the Board moves and votes on a motion. 2 . Limiting Agenda Items Maire O 'Neill moved, seconded by Mara-Gai Katz, General Section II, Part A. Meetings of the "Design Review Board Procedures" be amended to include an item 4 . that the agenda for project reviews shall be limited to 5 items . Kim Walker suggested that the items would better be limited by a time frame rather than the number of items . She said that 5 items could possibly be reviewed within a half hour and such a circumstance would waste the public' s time. Planner Arkell explained the Planning Board review process and limitation on review items . Roger Cruwys remarked that it would be unfair to the public to limit the agenda to only five items . Mara-Gai Katz remarked that all of the staff reports do not have all the information the Board requires . She added that, if the reports are fully prepared, the review time would be shortened. Planner Arkell noted that staff has to review projects within 48 hours for completeness, and sometimes submittals are not fully reviewed until after they have been posted. Mara-Kai Gatz confirmed with Planner Arkell that applications include lists of submittal requirements . Kim Walker suggested that simple reviews could possible take exception to a limitation on agenda items . Planner Arkell commented that the Board members would still have to spend the time reviewing the proposals regardless of how long the actual meeting takes. Kim Walker remarked that strict parameters could backfire. Cliff Chisholm remarked that he would hate to see the Board take a position which closes down the review process any more. He suggested a balance between no more than 5 items or 2-1/2 hours as he would hate to arbitrarily kick back applicants two weeks at a time because we don' t want to attend long meetings . He added that if 8 or 9 items could be done in two hours, they should be scheduled. Planner Arkell responded that the Planning Office cannot control how quickly the Board acts on the projects . Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by Kim Walker, to amend the "Design Review Board Procedures" to limit the number of project review items to seven at the discretion of the Planning Office. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 3 . Update on Jennifer Mitchell Trial & Repercussions Dave Skelton noted that five counts were dropped by Judge Moran; the only remaining count resulted in a court order to change the way deviations are handled. He noted that DRB will take action on deviations as normal and the DRB recommendation will be forwarded to City Commission for a public hearing. In this way, they will be viewed similarly as variances and will need to be noticed to the public. He added that essentially the ruling tags the Secretary of Interior Standards as constitutional . 4 . Miscellaneous Kim Walker asked Planning Staff to provide the Board the lists of submittal requirements for the various applications reviewed by them. Maire O'Neill suggested the Board set aside time to discuss the architectural guidelines . Project Review 1 . Penwell COA Z-9522 Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by Kim Walker, to open and continue the project definitely to April 11, 1995 . Maire O 'Neill questioned why the project is being continued when the DRB procedures call for a decision within two weeks . Planner Arkell explained that when the project is continued at the request of the applicant, there is no such time limits . The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 2 . Blackwood II Z-9523 Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by Kim Walker, to open and continue the project definitely to April 11, 1995 . The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 3 . Mitchell Koury COA Z-9530 Planner Morris pulled the project off of the Consent Agenda on account of pubic comment received concerning maneuverability of the alley. He indicated that the citizen' s concern is that drivers have to back up completely out of the alley. He added that the applicant is not opposed to providing a backup/turnaround space on the east side of the alley. Planner Morris recommended that such clearance areas be maintained on the north and/or south sides of the proposed carport . Cliff Chisholm confirmed with Planner Morris that the alley is a dead end. Planner Morris remarked that the resident indicated that the "dead end" sign is often torn down or missing. Roger Cruwys confirmed that turnaround spaces would be added to the submittal . Maire O 'Neill confirmed that the 24 ' backup space would include the portion of the public alley. Kim Walker moved, seconded by Roger Cruwys to approve the proposal as presented with an added condition that the applicant provide a free and clearly maintained turnaround space on either the north or south side of the carport. The motion carried with a unanimous vote of the members present. 4 . Dairykeep Deviation Z-93110 Planner Arkell reviewed the proposal and code requirement that all landscaping have underground irrigation. She indicated that the applicant has made the request because of cost constraints . Cliff Chisholm questioned the expense if it is just a matter of trenching through the dirt to the areas . Roger Cruwys agreed and remarked that there will be no guarantee that the area will be taken care of . Kim Walker moved to deny the deviation. Since there was no second to the motion, it died. Maire O'Neill noted that the applicant does not propose sprinklers for the rest of the site. She noted that the apartment manager is generally hired to maintain the site and given that point, she would support the deviation. Maire O'Neill moved, seconded by Kim Walker, to recommend approval of the deviation if light of the fact that the proposal is a low income housing project. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 5 . Vander Jagt Z-9529 Planner Windemaker reviewed the proposal, deviations and staff conditions . She noted the receipt of three letters of opposition from the public in addition to the three distributed in the DRB packets . Cliff Chisholm questioned condition #2 . He asked where the applicant legally stands with a limitation on business hours and if such a limitation could be imposed with the deed of the land if the business changes . Planner Windemaker responded, that as written, the condition would be enforced by the Zone Code Enforcement Officer. She added that she feels she can ask for this condition to protect the residential adjacencies . Roger Cruwys questioned the need for a deviation for the additional paving at the main access . Planner Windemaker remarked that the subject triangular portion is not technically part of the access . Cliff Chisholm inquired about the deviation for parking in the alley. Planner Windemaker explained that the Zoning Ordinance allows single family residences through triplexes to back into a public right-of-way. A larger development, she explained, would need a deviation per code. Maire O 'Neill asked about the applicants record regarding landscaping with the existing building. Planner Windemaker responded, that to the best of her knowledge, landscaping was shown on the building permit submittal for the project, but was not required for the project. She indicated that there is no way to force the owner to put landscaping in without looking at the existing building as possibly being expanded beyond what would require a major site plan review. Maire O'Neill remarked that there is some question whether the subject proposal is an extension of the existing building. Planner Windemaker responded that the Planning Director has determined that, since they are separate lots and the buildings are not attached, the fact that the two lots are owned by the same person has no bearing. Cliff Chisholm questioned what would need to happen require the lots to be reviewed as one. Planner Windemaker explained that the buildings would need to share vehicle circulation or the same water service. Maire O 'Neill asked if the street cut for the water service will be restricted by the moratorium. Planner Windemaker remarked that the streets have been overlayed prior to the establishment of the moratorium and explained that the applicant would need to obtain a street cut permit. Cliff Chisholm questioned staff condition #5 and remarked that he doesn ' t feel it is prudent to make a commercial building look residential . He suggested that the wording be changed to ensure that the awning or canopy is high quality and looks good. Kim Walker commented that an awning could be an odd element on a commercial building and said she would not want to make such a condition. Maire O'Neill remarked that condition #2 would be very difficult to enforce and that the condition suggests a real conflict with the neighborhood' s needs . Cliff Chisholm commented that he feels the DRB has no business making such a conditions . Roger Cruwys agreed. Kim walker moved, seconded by Roger Cruwys, to approve the proposal as submitted with the deletion of conditions #2 and #5 . Maire O 'Neill asked whether there is a way to limit the kind of traffic as she sees the blockage of the alley as a major consideration. Cliff Chisholm remarked that trying to limit alley traffic is akin to trying to limit the hours of business . Planner Windemaker noted that the proposed business is not required to provide a loading zone and delivery vehicles park in the alleys at any time. She added that DRC has conditioned the project to provide adequate backup maneuverability and templates for turning movements . Kim Walker remarked that issues which don' t apply to the Design Review Board have to be deferred back to staff and City Commission. Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by Kim Walker to amend the motion to include that a detail of the proposed awning be submitted for staff review and approval, and that the applicant try to avoid an awning that is lightweight, flimsy, or too residential in character. The amendment to the motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. The motion carried with a 4 : 1 vote; those in favor being Cliff Chisholm, Kim Walker, Roger Cruwys , and Mara-Gai Katz; Maire O 'Neill voting against. 6 . Speedy Lube z-9531 Planner Skelton reviewed the proposal, the staff report, and the review process for the proposed site modifications . Roger Cruwys confirmed that the submitted plans are generally representative of the site. Planner Skelton indicated that the applicant has satisfied the conditions set forth by the 1993 decisions of the City Commission and reiterated applicable Entryway Corridor Guidelines . Maire O'Neill confirmed that the entire addition will be under an existing roof . She questioned why staff recommends making exterior changes to the structure that are hardly visible from the corridor elevation. Cliff Chisholm remarked that he would probably not recommend any alterations to the existing entry, rather, his concerns would be that the proposed window match the character of the windows in the front of the building. He added that he is in agreement with the condition regarding the materials and voiced concern regarding the difficulty in matching the existing brick. Kim Walker remarked that any material other than masonry would seem out of character. Maire O'Neill suggested masonry type tile as an option for the other side. After a general discussion regarding possibilities for materials and enhancement details, Kim Walker asked that the Board consider the expense to the applicant. She suggested that an awning in conjunction with masonry tile would be a nice middle ground solution. Planner Skelton suggested that hardware or a lighting fixture could enhance the entry. Cliff Chisholm agreed that a lighting fixture could serve as a decorative element. Roger Cruwys commented that an awning might work to give the structure something other than a flat facade. Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by Kim Walker, to approve the project staff conditions 1 -5 and the modification of condition #3 to allow for a larger light fixture to serve as a decorative element. Maire O'Neill clarified that any proposal to meet condition #3 would not come back before the Board. The motion carried with an unanimous voice vote of the members present . 7. Rocky Mountain Window Z-94138 Planner Morris reviewed the proposed revisions and indicated that staff feels the project has been improved. Cliff Chisholm confirmed with Planner Morris that changes are proposed for only the roof and front elevations , and that brick masonry would be used at the base and color lock siding and dryvitt materials would create a score effect . Maire O'Neill stated that she thinks the pitched roof on the warehouse is an improvement; however she voiced preference for the short elevation on the previous submittal . Roger Cruwys moved, seconded by Mara-Gai Katz, to approve the modifications as submitted. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present . 8 . Ranch & Home Supply Z-9516 Planner Skelton remarked that the applicant was required to submit revised landscape and elevation plans for the approval of the Board. Nick Salmon reviewed the proposed revisions . Planner Skelton noted the proposed internally illuminated canned sign elements . Roger Cruwys commented that he thinks the revisions are a vast improvement. He suggested that the applicant use Austrian pines along the north side for screening and that the trees along the south elevation be located at the downspouts . Nick Salmon responded that the tree placement on the south elevation was to allow they would replace the junipers along the north elevation with Austrian pines . He added that he is not comfortable putting conifers on the south side Kim Walker moved, seconded by Roger Cruwys to approve the revisions with the added condition that the trees along the north elevation be changed from junipers to Austrian pines . The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present.