Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-11-1995 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - APRIL 11, 1995 Members Present: Cliff Chisholm Ellen Kreighbaum John DeHaas Mara-Gai Katz Maire O 'Neill Staff Present: Therese Berger Dale Beland Lanette windemaker Visitors Present: Matt Foure, Nick Fullerton Architects Mike Teslow Laura Danhof Mike Garrity Sher Rosenberg Ben Lloyd Project Reviews 1 . D.A. Davidson Z-94142 Planner Beland reviewed the proposal and noted that the DRB gave the applicant conditional approval and asked that the landscape plan come back for review. He asked the Board to consider the signage as well . Planner Beland explained that the elimination of one parking space provides more landscape and still allows the project to comply with parking requirements . Maire O 'Neill questioned the purpose of the monument sign in addition to the signage on the building face. Planner Beland remarked that it is not unusual for proposals to have both types of signage. Maire O'Neill remarked that the monument sign is the type that is typically proposed further down the corridor and indicated her feeling is that it seems out of place. Ellen Kreighbaum confirmed that the revised monument sign is parallel to street. Maire O 'Neill moved, seconded by John DeHaas, to approve the project as proposed subject to the sign code limitations in regards to the height of the monument sign. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 2 . Bridger Arms Z-9533 Planner Beland reviewed the proposal and deviations . He explained that the existing duplex will be relocated and that the project was conditionally approved by DRC. He noted that the Historical Preservation Officer has suggested that the applicant shift the entry of the northern Unit #1 to face Babcock and passed out elevation options just submitted by the applicant. Cliff Chisholm confirmed that the options are in response to the Historical Preservation Officer ' s recommendations . Dale Beland asked Mike Teslow if the existing window will be re-used as originally proposed. Mike Teslow responded that the subject window will go with the existing house when it is relocated. Cliff Chisholm confirmed with Dale Beland that parking requirements are based on 2 .2 spaces per unit. Planner Beland explained that the project has been through several reviews and revisions, and the proposed parking situation seems to be the most practical if the deviation is granted. Maire O'Neill confirmed that the proposed building is on the same lot as the existing brick condo . She continued that, given that the two structures will be sharing a site, she suggested more effective treatment be given the relationship. She said the treatment of the entry sequence is very blunt and abrupt, providing very little relief in the facade and not much of a buffer between parking and the building. She suggested that in addition to the entry of Unit #1 being shifted to Babcock, that the entry to Unit #4 is faced to the south, and that more of a distinct porch element is created for the entries to Units #2 and #3 . Mara-Gai Katz suggested that additional landscaping be provided between Unit #4 and what will now become parking. Kim Walker remarked that she likes the alternative of putting the entrance of Unit #1 on Babcock; however, she doesn' t see the necessity of changing the entrances of the other units . She added that in order to maintain density downtown the City will have to entertain alternative parking situations . Kim Walker made it clear that she is in favor of both deviations . Roger Cruwys agreed with Kim Walker in regards to allowing the deviations . He indicated that he, too, feels that unit #4 should take advantage of the open space of the southern yard. He recommended additional landscaping on both the north and south elevations . Roger Cruwys questioned the materials of the trash disposal enclosure. Mike Teslow confirmed that it will be a simple solid fence constructed of 1/2" siding. Dale Beland noted that DRC included a condition that the applicant satisfy the Department of Sanitation requirements in regards to providing a larger dumpster and enclosure. Roger Cruwys commented that he would like the enclosure be a little more attractive and compatible with the architecture of the building. Mike Teslow remarked that if the entrance on Unit #4 is made to face the southern landscaped area, he feels it would preclude the other three tenants from feeling they can use that area as a common area. Kim Walker confirmed that each unit will have a backyard space separated with a partition wall and no fence on the west side. Cliff Chisholm remarked that Maire O 'Neill made some good suggestions in terms of the Unit #4 entrance; however, the applicant made a good point as well . He added that the location of the trash enclosure might make a south entrance on Unit #4 undesirable as well . He suggested that perhaps some sort of entrance could be worked out on the south elevation of Unit #4 . Cliff Chisholm suggested that the applicant articulate the entrance porches to all the units with railing, heavier posts, or decorated posts to give them a more of a residential character. He concluded that he would support the deviations to encourage inf ill development. Kim Walker voiced preference for the central entrance of the elevation options provided by the applicant. Ellen Kreighbaum agreed. Dale Boland noted that the existing duplex has an offset entry. Maire O 'Neill said that the important factor is how the elevation affects the floor plan. Mike Teslow indicated that a central entrance would still take a path through the living room, but a side entrance would work better. She stated that the upper right hand drawing looks more pleasing with the placement of windows . Cliff Chisholm agreed and added that he would be inclined to agree with the elevation that works out best for the builder. John DeHaas remarked that the porches should be defined in a more residential way. Maire O'Neill suggested pulling the two central Units #2 and #4 to the west and shifting Units #1 and #4 to the east to allow a deeper zone in which to place the porches . She added that she feels the porch is essential as it is the front entrance from the parking. Cliff Chisholm agreed. Kim Walker remarked that, if she lived there, she would prefer more emphasis be given to the backyard private area rather than the porch which is exposed. Mike Teslow indicated that the interior units have a total backyard space of 10 ' X 18 ' and the interior units have a total backyard space of 8 ' X 201 . Maire O 'Neill suggested reversing the plans of the interior and exterior units to allow the interior units to be wider and shorter, and to have more yard space. Mike Teslow said he could put a fence on the west side of the property to provide more privacy. Roger Cruwys remarked that he prefers the off-set entry as per the top right elevation option the applicant provided. He commented that he would rather have private space in the rear yard rather than at the parking lot. Mike Teslow confirmed that he would be willing to provide a 6 ' privacy fence at the west property line. Roger Cruwys suggested that, at a bare minimum, that windows be added to the southern elevation. After a general discussion regarding shifting the floor plans, Kim Walker suggested that Unit #4 could use the floor plan of Unit #2 to allow for a sliding glass window. Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by Kim Walker, to recommend approval of the proposal and deviations per staff conditions; that the upper right hand elevation option be utilized for the Babcock entrance of Unit #1; that all the porches be articulated with railing or post treatments that give them more of a residential character; that Unit #4 be provided with either an entry to the south yard or windows that face the south yard; that a privacy fence be provided along the west edge of the property; that additional shrubbery be provided at the southern border of the greenspace of Unit #4; and that the trash enclosure have a character more related to the character of the units . The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present . 3 . Amalgamated Inc. Z-9534 Planner Windemaker reviewed the project, proposed deviations, and adjacencies . She noted the parking requirements and reviewed staff conditions . Kim Walker confirmed with Sher Rosenberg that a portion of the upper driveway exists in the setback. Ellen Kreighbaum inquired about the possible fire protection requirements for the windows ont he west side. Planner Windemaker explained that the site has been resurveyed and the conclusion is that the structure is over 10 , from the property line, which would preclude the windows from having to be fire rated. She explained the condition of DRC relating to the location of a property line pin to ensure the subject site plan is correct. Kim Walker remarked that the sign is fitting for the house and that she would support the deviations as she feels they will not effect traffic and are appropriate for the site. Maire O'Neill confirmed that the intention of staff condition #3 is that the railing of the ramp and not the concrete is to match the colors of the house. Planner Windemaker pointed out the proposed landscaped area adjacent to the ramp. Cliff Chisholm remarked that he would like to see the structure get used, however he questioned why staff recommends the deviation to allow the applicant to back into the street. Planner Windemaker remarked that staff reasoning included the fact that most of the traffic on 5th goes to the north, that only two spaces are proposed to back onto 5th, the two spaces do not include the handicapped space, and that without the deviation there are few alternatives to allow the site to be converted into an office. She noted that the Street/Sanitation Department is not happy with the prospect of backing onto 5th. Ellen Kreighbaum confirmed with Mike Garrity that the structure would be used to attorneys and accountants. Mike Garrity noted that parking is available on the street around the corner in addition to the parking provided on site. Planner Windemaker indicated that the garage will be reserved specifically for employee parking. Kim Walker suggested the possibility providing a one-way entrance from 5th which exits the alley. Mike Garrity explained that they have explored several options and all of them seem to reduce the landscaping. Cliff Chisholm commented that he is skeptical about approving a commercial parking lot where the customer has to back onto a public street. He indicated that he would not support the deviation to back into a public right of way and suggested the applicant look at what they have to do to make it work. Kim Walker remarked that she feels uncomfortable denying the proposed parking if the applicant has explored all of the possibilities . Mike Garrity discussed the options they have explored in trying to resolve the parking issue. He explained that backing onto 5th is an existing condition and that from the previous DRB reviews, they have concluded that it was DRB ' s desire to maintain all of the landscaping and improve it. MOTION - Maire O 'Neill moved, seconded by Kim Walker, to recommend approval of the project as proposed, including the deviations and signage, per staff conditions and the clarification that condition #3 intends that the non-concrete portions of the ramp match one of the colors of the structure. Roger Cruwys confirmed with Planner Windemaker that the project would come back before the Board if the deviations are denied. John DeHaas remarked that he doesn' t feel good about allowing the applicant to back into the street. Ellen Kreighbaum remarked that she would like to see the project move forward, but has a hard time with accepting the deviation to allow backing onto 5th. She indicated that she feels that not enough options have been presented to her to convince her that it would be necessary. Cliff Chisholm and Mara-Gai Katz agreed. The motion was defeated; those in favor being Maire O'Neill; those voting against being John DeHaas, Cliff Chisholm, Mara-Gai Katz, and Roger Cruwys . MOTION - Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by Ellen Kreighbaum, to recommend approval of the project per staff conditions and the clarification of condition #3 as described with the exception of approving the deviation for backing into 5th Avenue. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 4 . Danhof Concept Plan PUD Planner Windemaker reviewed the project and explained the type of review process . She noted ajacent developments and read the staff comments . She indicated that if the proposal achieves concept approval the Board will see it again as a Preliminary Planned Unit Development. Ellen Kreighbaum questioned the applicant ' s statement regarding wanting the option to change back to commercial if the entire neighborhood went commercial . Laura Danhof responded that she would like to have the option of running a business out of her home, and she wouldn' t want to maintain a residence on the site if the other areas become commercial . Planner Windemaker explained that the applicant would have to go through a site plan review to change the site back to commercial . She added that the proposed site plan would probably preclude changing the use back to commercial as the site would not accommodate the required parking. Kim Walker confirmed that the subject lot is vacant. Maire O 'Neill remarked that the proposed concept plan seems fine, that aspects of the architectural design are delightfully simplistic. She added that the garage elevation from the alley could be improved. John DeHaas remarked that the street facade should be dressed up with color and material . He added that refinement in the final design will make a very nice structure. Ellen Kreighbaum inquired about backing into the alley. Planner Windemaker responded that the PUD process allows the applicant to ask for reduced standards . Ellen Kreighbaum said that she likes the design and noted that the north and south elevations look like lodges rather than residences . Mara-Gai Katz commented that she feels the drawings are in keeping with the site. Kim Walker confirmed with Laura Danhof that the possibility of returning the site to a commercial use is minimized by the site plan. Planner Windemaker noted that the applicant owns the adjacent lot as well . Roger Cruwys commented that the project seems to be off to a pretty good start . He indicated that the applicant would need to provide a more complete landscaping plan. Kim Walker asked if the PUD landscaping requirements are different. Planner Windemaker remarked that a larger percentage is required as open space. Cliff Chisholm remarked that he agrees with staff regarding the gable end on the west elevation, that the blank look should be minimized. Maire O'Neill suggested that the massing of the second story be continued on the west elevation. 5 . Penwell COA MOTION - John Dehass moved, seconded by Maire O'Neill, to deny the proposal due to the lack of revised submittal materials from the applicant. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of members present. 6 . Blackwood II MOTION - John Dehass moved, seconded by Maire O'Neill, to deny the proposal due the lack of revised submittal materials from the applicant. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of members present .