Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-1995 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - JULY 11, 1995 BOARD PRESENT: Cliff Chisholm Kim Walker Roger Cruwys John DeHaas Ed McCrone STAFF PRESENT: Georgiann Youngstrom Dave Skelton Lanette Windemaker Patrick Morris VISITORS PRESENT: Rob Gilbert Stephen Quayle Larry Berg Robert Doughtery Van Bryan Felix P. Mr. McReynolds Project Reviews 1. American Bank MaSP Z-9568 Introduction of Ed McCrone as new member to the Board was done by Cliff Chisholm. He noted that a memo rescheduling the orientation meeting of board members and a meeting of the board with staff shows July 27 at 7 p.m. for the first and August 10 at 7 p.m. for the second. Planner Skelton stated as the proposed project is a major site plan application that shows as many as 6 deviations or variations , the applicant wishes to revise the site plan. He asked that because this item is presently scheduled before the board that it be made an informal review so that input could be given the applicant to assist him in filling out the new application. He noted that the applicant' s representative, Rob Gilbert, was here. Rob Gilbert showed renderings of the proposed project building and parking area to help the board visualize the proposal . He stated that the project is an open air parking building and a separate building that will be a professional building. He noted that the building has aspects of the Beaver Pond complex. Planner Skelton noted that the proposed 2- story building will be on the west side of the property between the Beaver Pond Plaza and the existing bank. He stated that the Petcetera building to the east will be removed and that the open air parking will be there. Planner Skelton stated that the deviations have all been addressed but one by modifications to the site plan by applicant. He stated that his first inclination on the proposal is that it is different from the existing American Bank building and that he appreciated seeing the color renderings with the cloth awnings and the pitched roof . Kim Walker stated that it looks very tasteful and seems to incorporate everything we' re looking for. Planner Skelton stated the applicants have revised the site plan to get shared access as requested from adjacent businesses . He noted that this is an informal review and public meeting but not a public hearing. He explained that at the time of the formal review there may be some people that will want to make comment . Cliff Chisholm asked if there were people in the audience that may want to make comments on this project . Planner Skelton stated that the Beaver Pond and the Development Review Committee have concern on the west side parking that will be lost. He noted that some of Beaver Pond parking is sweeping across the rear of the bank' s parking area. Rob Gilbert stated that the revised site plan is not cutting them off like the present site plan shows . Rob Gilbert stated that the professional building will have brick and cedar roof shingles and cooping with the awning. Cliff Chisholm asked what materials will be covering the parking structure. Rob Gilbert stated that the roof will be metal with a broad band facia and maybe some copper and wood. He stated that the common elements and cladding will be dryvit and that the existing stone will also be covered with dryvit to tie the two buildings together. Cliff Chisholm asked if there would be modifications to the existing building. Rob gilbert stated that originally they were not looking at any modifications but they now are looking at alternatives to that and may look at doing something but it is a cost issue. Roger Cruwys asked if there is an entry on the west of the professional building. Robert Gilbert replied that there is . Roger Cruwys stated that the Beaver Pond parking seems to be packed every time he goes by. Kim Walker asked what the situation on parking was there and if in fact the applicant had an obligation to have parking for the neighboring businesses . Planner Skelton stated there is nothing documented on the parking in terms of a perpetual parking easement for Beaver Pond Plaza. He said there are two accesses shown on the site plan but the revised site plan now shows a shared entry with the Beaver Pond Plaza and the access by the Red Barn eliminated. Kim Walker asked if there was a secondary access off and on to Babcock and it was confirmed by Planner Skelton that there is . Planner Skelton stated that there will be a variance with the revised site plan as there is a double frontage of 25' for each front yard setback and 10 proposed parking spaces will encroach because it is more than 20% into the set back. As there will be a variance the project will have to go before the Board of Adjustments also. Ed McCrone asked if there was landscaping between the buildings . Rob Gilbert replied that there will be landscaping on Babcock with corridor boulevard trees and berm. Roger Cruwys asked about landscaping on the west elevation of the professional building. Rob Gilbert stated we are not looking at any at this time. Roger Cruwys stated that they will need to do some because of the west facing and heat from the sun. Cliff Chisholm asked what the pitch of the roof covering the parking structure is . Rob Gilbert stated that it is shallow at 4- 12 . Cliff Chisholm stated that it looked steeper than that. He said that he encourages them to keep the roof shallow and to have a low profile so the parking structure will not be a dominate structure on the street. 2 . Garnsey II COA with Deviation Z-9582 Planner Skelton reviewed for the Board that on a previous application the DRB had recommended the modification of the north west corner of the existing property. Planner Skelton stated that the City Commission, however, denied the deviation. Planner Skelton stated that after the applicant had removed the previous building and staked out the property, they found it was necessary to request the deviation for the encroachment which will put the proposed building 2' off the property line on the west side. He noted that this will eliminate a substantial portion of the rear yard. Comments in a memo from the Historic Preservation Officer noted that this placement is common in the neighborhood. Planner Skelton stated that the staff recommends the DRB recommend approval of the COA with the deviation. Cliff Chisholm moved, Kim walker seconded, to recommend approval of the COA with deviation based on the reasons given by Planner Skelton. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 3 . Lockwood Building MaSP/COA Z-9584 Planner Windemaker reviewed the proposed project. She noted that two parking spaces for the dwelling are being provided and that a cash in lieu of parking for the office structure is proposed. The comments received from the Historic Preservation Officer included that the design and materials for construction could be closer to the neighborhood but that much of the historic character of the neighborhood had already been changed in the recent past . Planner Windemaker reported on the four staff conditions for recommending approval . Cliff Chisholm asked what the proposed siding is . Planner Windemaker stated that it is 8" color lock. Cliff Chisholm stated that the staff is proposing 6" color lock and that he concurred with that proposal . He also agreed with changing the window above the garage door from one large window to a pattern of windows and asked the applicant to consider windows in the door to break the expanse of the garage. Kim Walker agreed with the Historic Preservation Officer that there may be a more compatible facade pattern and suggested that the applicant talk directly with him, John DeHaas noted that the windows and the open gable on the east is out of character of the neighborhood. Planner windemaker stated it is different from the neighborhood and asked John DeHaas if he felt it needed to be a condition. He replied he did not. Ed McCrone asked what cash in lieu of parking is and how it works . Planner Windemaker stated that zoning in 13- 3 districts allows parking spaces to be purchased from the parking commission and that the Design Review Board has no purview over that. Kim Walker moved to recommend for approval with the staff conditions . There was no second to the motion. Cliff Chisholm said that it is obvious that the applicant is not attempting to provide a building that looks like it was built in some other time and the code says that is o.k. as long as it is sensitive to the surrounding buildings . He noted that this proposed project is but he questions the scale and the west elevation which seems a little blank with the three smaller slider windows . He said he would like to hear the response of the applicant to the smaller exposure of siding, the making it more compatible with neighborhood. He also noted that he understands that the applicant might want to make the garage more secure and has no strong feelings about windows in those doors . Van Bryan stated that the property owner on the west had requested her privacy to be secured with less windows looking down into her property and added that she will be adding more lilac bushes in the near future. He said the windows on the west elevation were also higher so desks can be placed under them. Roger Cruwys stated that the south elevation has no screening and looks blank and stark. Van Bryan stated that the neighbor' s house is close. Ed McCrone stated that he owns the house to the south and that there is a 4 ' fence in place. He confirmed that the west windows will be looking at the neighbor. Roger Cruwys said he is not so adamant with the windows in the garage. Van Bryan commented that they may go with panel doors on the garage instead. Cliff Chisholm asked about the window and if they prefer not to change it because the building built at this time have their own characteristics . He stated that the windows in the front seem appropriate for this building. Ed McCrone asked about the kitchen in the office and how many apartments are allowed in a B-3 district. Planner Windemaker replied that as many as the lot is allowed to have. She noted that if the offices were made into an apartment the parking requirements would decrease by one. van Bryan commented that the kitchen in the office is for an under the counter refrigerator and a microwave. Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by John DeHaas, to accept the proposal with conditions #1 and #2 of the staff report, altering #3 to be not a condition but a suggestion and to eliminate #4 . Ed McCrone abstained from voting. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the remaining members present. 4 . Sinclair Sign COA with Deviations Z-9580 The project was reviewed by Planner Windemaker as a certificate of appropriateness application with deviations to allow a 33 .25 square foot low profile sign with at least 106 . 4 square foot of landscaping. Planner Windemaker noted that there is no landscaping presently on the property. She reviewed the staff conditions and stated that the staff recommends approval of this COA with deviations . She also noted that the decrease in landscaping is due to the placement of the sign between two curb cuts . Kim Walker asked if there is any visibility problem for a conforming sign? Planner Windemaker stated that there doesn' t appear to be and that the sign will be setback 5' from the property line. Cliff Chisholm stated that it seems the application is asking for the most sign and least landscaping allowable, since the deviations are asking for the 20% either way. The applicant stated that the requested sign is a standard sign from Sinclair. Cliff Chisholm asked if they would prefer to stay with this standard sign but would be willing to provide the correct amount of landscaping. The applicant replied that they would. Kim Walker said she had a problem with doing that and doesn' t believe that an exception should be made. She said if we are requiring others to use the correct landscaping and signage we need to require it of all . She suggested that the landscaping that would not fit around the signage could be placed in another location on the property. Cliff Chisholm moved, John Dehaas seconded, that because of the precedent this would set, to recommend the denial of the COA with deviations . The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 5 . McReynolds COA with Deviation Z-9578 Planner Morris reviewed this proposed expansion of an existing residence and deviation request for a 3 ' encroachment into the 8' side yard. He stated that staff supports this application wholeheartedly and would have placed it on the consent agenda had it not had the deviation. He noted that he has received no negative public comments and noted the application contained positive comments from the neighbors . Planner Morris stated that staff is requesting that the board make a recommendation to the City Commission for approval subject to the condition of obtaining a building permit within one year of approval . Cliff Chisholm asked what the rationale of supporting the deviation into the side yard was . Planner Morris stated that there will still remain a 5' yard set back and the adjacent property has the full set back but most importantly the addition will replace an existing deck that is now encroaching. Kim Walker moved, seconded by Ed McCrone, to recommend the approval of this COA with the deviation as proposed. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present . 6. Wong' s Sign COA Z-9577 Planner Morris stated that the applicant had contacted staff after receiving the staff report and that he had met with the applicant. The applicant asked the board to open this item and carry it over to the next meeting in two weeks as he will not be doing the awning. Planner Morris noted that the applicant is considering Pan Channel signage. Cliff Chisholm wondered why the applicant was requesting this as the only condition had to do with the striped awning. Planner Morris reported that as their conversation evolved the applicant expressed the uneasiness he had about the awning before the application and after the staff report he didn' t feel right about it at all and wants to pursue something else. Planner Morris had reassured the applicant that even with the staff report the Board may approve it, but he chose to redo the proposal . Kim Walker asked what pan channel signage is . Planner Morris explained the lettering by drawing an example for the Board and referred them to older Safeway store signs . Kim Walker wondered if the front of the building is in good condition to have that kind of lettering. Roger Cruwys asked why the applicant was uneasy with the awning. Planner Morris said he thought the feeling was rooted in the applicant' s sensitivity to preserving historic buildings and a certain desire to have the signage in tune with an art deco style as the new name for the business is the China Diner and the alternate lettering will add to that image. Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by Kim Walker, to open and continue this application to the next meeting. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of the members present.