Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-25-1995 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - JULY 25, 1995 Members Present: Cliff Chisholm Kim Walker John DeHaas Ed McCrone Walt Willet Mara-Gai Katz Paul Gleye Staff Present: Georgiann Youngstrom Debbie Arkell Lanette Windemaker Patrict Morris Dave Skelton Visitors Present: Dale Sweetser Nick Salmon Dick Pence Craig McVicker Cliff Chisholm introduced the new members of the Board, Walt Willet and Paul Gleye. He reminded the Board of the orientation meeting for new members which will be held Thursday, July 27, at 7 p.m. in the conference room of the City Building. He also reminded them of the meeting between the Board and the staff which will take place on August 10 at 7 p.m. in the City Commission Room. A. Consent Agenda 1. Hainsworth COA Z-9589 Cliff Chisholm removed himself from the Board as this project comes from his office. Kim Walker noted this item has been placed on the Consent Agenda. No members of the Board requested that the item be removed. John DeHaas moved, seconded by Mara-Gai Katz, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness application to install a new skylight in the north elevation of an exiting home as presented in the application. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote of the voting members . 2 . Paxton COA Z-9588 Cliff Chisholm noted this item has been placed on the Consent Agenda. No members of the Board requested that the item be removed. Kim Walker moved, seconded by John DeHaas, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness application for a 10, X 6 ' rear mudroom addition. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote of the members present. B. Project Review 1. Sweetser-White COA with Deviation Z-9590 Planner Skelton reviewed the project. He noted that as part of the Staff Summary Report he had attached a general architectural survey of the neighborhood. He reviewed that in August of 1994 the applicants had applied for a 2nd story to the existing residential dwelling and when the Building Department determined that the residence was not structurally sound and could not support this application was withdrawn. Planner Skelton stated that now the application is for a 6' porch on the south and west side of an existing building in the conservation overlay. He stated it will encroach 19 ' in the 25, front yard set back so a deviation is requested. He then quoted Sec. 18 . 50 . 060 .A of the Zoning Code to explain the deviation required. Planner Skelton stated that this north east neighborhood has a great diversity in architectural forms . He pointed out that the only obvious architectural element common in this proposed project is the covered porches and that the project is similar to others in the area. Planner Skelton stated that there has been no public testimony although both he and Historic Preservation Officer, Derek Strahn, have some concern with the street scape. He then showed the Board colored pictures of the mature ash tree and mature hedge that provides screening. He stated that if it were not for the mature hedge or the boulevard tree if loss to the street there would be no buffer for the porch. He stated the porch will be 1' from the ash tree trunk. Planner Skelton stated that during the land use inventory evidence of 3 ' high railing along perimeter of porches in the area and suggest that the applicant consider placing a railing at the top. Planner Skelton reviewed the staff conditions . One of the conditions included submitting elevations showing the materials used and the roof pitches to the Planning Office so there will be a record in place should changes be done in the future. Cliff Chisholm noted the procedure for the Board on what is done after a staff report is presented. He stated that each Board member is allowed to make comments so that all issues of concern are presented. Clarification is then asked from the staff and sometimes direct questions are given to applicants . He pointed out that after a motion is brought any further discussion is directly related to what the motion says . Ed McCrone voiced concern about the mature tree and stated it would be a shame to lose it. He pointed out from the report by Derek Strahn that working on the porch will be a benefit for people in the Career Transition Project. Planner Skelton added that Derek Strahn is here to give more information on this low income housing grant if the Board would like. Cliff Chisholm invited Derek Strahn to briefly inform the Board concerning this project. Derek Strahn stated that the Preservation Board has two goals : 1) to establish a low income grant fund in the overlay district in which individuals and neighborhoods that might not be able to afford it will be given financial help in up keep of homes; and 2) to provide opportunity for women to work in construction. He stated that the Board has two pilot projects this summer and the present project will be #2 . Cliff Chisholm asked what the supervision is on the job . Derek Strahn stated that a contractor is on the site and that other training is done by Career Transition so that there is in-house education and on site training. John DeHaas voiced concern about the intrusion into the front yard set back and said is probably is not uncommon in older neighborhoods . He questioned if the Board should recommend that the porch be set back another 1' to give the tree 21 . He said he didn' t want to lose the ash tree but wondered if the applicant would consider reducing the porch by 1' . He said he would like to see a compromise. Cliff Chisholm noted that the front will be 6' from the property line and 7' from the sidewalk. Planner Skelton stated that with the mature vegetation on the property it is a very tight situation to keep the overhang of the porch from the trunk and maintain the branches higher than that of the overhang. John DeHaas stated that is a valid point about the mature tree and hedge and that he would like to be flexible enough to meet the owners request but that a compromise is needed. He said the city should see the positive aspects from the project . Kim Walker stated she feels if the project is encroaching already it might make little difference to the tree if the porch is only 1' or 2' away but will make a lot of difference to the porch. She said she would like to see the deviation granted. Walt Willet stated that the 6' doesn' t bother him as much as the approach of the porch as it appears to be further into the front yard set back. Planner Skelton confirmed that there will be two steps to get into the porch. Walt Willet stated the steps will start even closer to the porch. Planner Skelton stated that on the south elevation it shows them protruding directly onto the street. He said that it is not covered in the encroachment as the steps are not covered with a post or cover. John DeHaas asked if it is possible to recess the steps into the porch. Planner Skelton said it is possible. John DeHaas pointed out that the two feet for the two steps puts the encroachment from 19 , to 211 . Paul Gleye stated that indeed the tree is important and that he felt the Board could leave it to the staff to make sure the tree remains . He stated that the railing above the porch the house needs to be simple and not too ornate as the existing building is simple otherwise it could make it overly cute. Mara-Gai Katz stated that she generally supports the project. She questioned how the porch would affect the root system of the tree. She said she would like to see the Board' s recommendation to include the 5' porch instead of the 6 ' porch to give the roots of the tree more room. Kim Walker asked what the difference of 1' or 2' from the trunk would be. Mara-Gai Katz stated that old trees have extensive root systems . Walt Willet asked if the foundation would be post and beam or continuous . Planner Skelton replied that it would be post and beam. Mara-Gai Katz questioned if the foundations would be placed under the posts . Dale Sweetser stated that the closest post is 4-5' from the tree. Cliff Chisholm voiced concern over the vinyl siding that is being requested. He stated that this has been discussed other times and that he feels vinyl siding is very inferior material and that it will be affected by the weather and the sun and that he would hate to see it allowed in the historic district. He said a recommendation for masonite siding or color lok should be required so that it can be painted in the future whereas the vinyl siding cannot . Planner Skelton stated that looking at the architectural inventory shows the various siding existing in the immediate neighborhood. He said if the integrity of the original building had remained in tact he would not have favored the vinyl but that integrity has been compromised through exterior changes and alterations and therefore the vinyl is acceptable. Cliff Chisholm asked if there any other questions or requests for the applicant. John DeHaas asked if the applicant will consider sitting the steps back into the porch. Dale Sweetser stated that there is one step into the home now and that it will be maintained. He said there will not be two steps . John DeHaas stated that the overhand of the porch can' t protect the step. Dale Sweetser stated the tree starts at 7' but at the ceiling height the tree moves out 814" . John DeHaas asked how far the overhang was . Dale Sweetser said that it will be the same as the house which is 12" . Paul Gleye moved, seconded by Walt Willet, to recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviation with conditions as outlined by staff with the modification to #2 that there will be documentation stating that the mature tree will be preserved. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 2 . Food Coop MiSP Z-9585 Planner Morris reviewed the Minor Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness application which consists of the relocation of an existing historic residence and the expansion of an existing parking lot. He stated that the deviation in the west side yard set back is due to the placement of a cardboard bailer. He showed the Board on the site plan where the cardboard bailer would be placed. Planner Morris stated that the staff finds the proposal outstanding with the structure being relocated and that he had received no public comment. He stated he recommend approval of the deviation. Ed McCrone stated he basically is in support of the project. John DeHaas stated he has no objection and that it is a reasonable request for the cardboard bailer. Walt Willet stated he didn' t see any problem. Paul Gleye asked about the landscaping stating that he would like to see more in this project. Planner Morris stated the landscaping as proposed is only lacking one tree which will be put on the west side of the site. He stated the DRB can require additional landscaping in the Conservation Overlay District when they feel it is appropriate to do so. Kim Walker stated that in the past the Board has agreed with the staff on the amount of landscaping when the project is excellent, as this one is . She said when the project is lacking then the Board uses the landscaping as an off set for the project. Mara-Gai Katz stated she generally supports the application. Kim Walker stated that she support it as well . Kim Walker moved, seconded by John DeHaas , to recommend approval of the deviation. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 3 . Morningstar COA with Deviation Z-9583 Planner Morris reviewed the proposed project. He stated that the deviation is unusual in that the existing encroachment will be reduced by 1' therefore, there is a gain in the set back instead of a loss . He stated that the staff finds that the proposal is superior to the existing covered porch and that it will match the home to a greater degree than what is existing. He noted that the proposal would have been placed on the consent agenda had it not been for the deviation request. Mara-Gai Katz stated that she fully supports the application. Paul Gleye and John DeHaas agreed with her. Walt Willet stated he thought it is an improvement. Ed McCrone stated that the applicant should be commended. The applicant stated that he realized he had left the skylights off the proposal and questioned how it would be best to handle that. Planner Morris stated that the applicant could get the information on the skylights and bring it back to the DRB for review. Kim Walker voiced concern about delaying the project for two weeks . John DeHaas moved, seconded by Ed McCrone, to recommend approval of the deviation with the added condition that the staff review the proposed skylights . The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 4 . Landon Industrial MaSP Z-9526 Planner Arkell reviewed the proposed project as a Major Site Plan located in the I-90 Overlay District. She indicated it has three street frontages, Raw Hide Way, Simmental Way, and Single Tree Court. Planner Arkell noted that although the zoning ordinance require a setback on Raw Hide Way the plans do not show any. She has been in contact with the applicant and they assure her they can change the design to fit it in. Planner Arkell related that the present proposed project had already been reviewed by the Simmental Review Committee of the subdivision in which this project will be located. She stated that that committee had approved the plan. Planner Arkell reviewed the 8 conditions recommended by staff for this project . The conditions included areas of landscaping, sidewalk on the north side, details of final lighting, bringing the architecture into compliance with the I-90 Overlay requirements which could be done by changing the pitch of the roof, breaking up the south elevation by recessing three double overhead doors to have a 25, loading zone which will only be allowed if using a small van for unloading otherwise a 70, loading berth is required. Kim Walker noted that on the south elevation the highlighted pitches go high on the rear. She asked if there is anything in the code about an unbroken 300, length. Planner Arkell stated the code requires break up every 100, . She said it applies to the front and east side of the building and it is questionable if it does not apply on the back. Planner Arkell continued reviewing the conditions . Other conditions included no mechanical roof mounted gear is allowable and ground mounted is only allowable if screened, signage showing materials and colors are to be reviewed by the staff , and landscaping is to be increased to include trees on all three street frontages . Planner Arkell stated that she had not received any comment from the County Road Superintendent but indicated that if he says no trees can be placed in the right-of-way, they should then be placed in the yard setbacks near the property line. Kim walker expressed concern with the roof line, especially with the pitch, and noted that the east end of the building needs further consideration and she is not sure a parapet will be adequate. She noted the architect has a chance to create an impressionable structure thru redesign. She noted enough changes would have to be made to the elevations that she could not recommend approval or denial at this time and suggested the project be continued to allow the applicant to redesign. Walt Willet disagreed with staff' s recommendation to continue the parapet on the east and west ends , as they would contribute to the length of the structure. He noted what is proposed breaks the facade enough. He agreed an 8 : 12 pitch is needed over the entries, adding he objects to phoney peaks like Wal-Marts, but noted these gables serve a purpose, but they do need to be high to break the visual line. He stated he would prefer adding peaks over the south facade doors over recessing the overhead doors . Paul G1eye stated the east and west elevations should be redesigned to get rid of the false parapets and use the money allocated for them to do a better design. Mara-Gai Katz stated she is concerned with the roof articulation, noting what is proposed is not adequate. She noted this has been a, major issue in other projects and the Board should be consistent in their reviews . She noted the front elevation with the gables is not adequate and she is not comfortable with the direction of the architecture of the structure. She stated the roof doesn' t have to be pitched entirely but something needs to be done to adequately break it up . She stated she is specifically concerned with the north elevation, but her comments apply to the roof of the whole building, so one doesn' t see the building as a flat expanse. She suggested doing something similar to the new structures on East Frontage Road. Mara-Gai Katz asked if the applicant was aware of the informal review process that is available so input can be given from the Board to help with plans before coming for review. The applicant stated that they were aware of the process , but were under the assumption that if the Simmental Review Committee approved the plan they would be in compliance. Mara-Gai Katz commented that the informal review process is helpful . The Applicant stated he appreciated that will consider it another time. Kim Walker noted that it was a mistake of the designer to not compare the two documents, as the landscaping is not even close to what is required in the zoning code. Walt Willet voiced concern about the rear loading areas wondering if the recessed doors would cut into the square footage of the building too much. The applicant stated that the insetting was due to the 25' needed for the loading berth. He said they have given some thought to the concern and realize there is an economic break point where the cost is too much and if it doesn' t make sense to do the project, it will not go forward. The applicant stated that the design of the proposed project was created to afford flexibility for possible tenants, as tenants are not on line yet. He said where the truck doors are now on the plans that a tenant may not need and so they may be moved. Therefore, he said, the plan shows the flexibility and did not presuppose where the doors would be. Mara-Gai Katz asked if he was saying that the doors might not be there. The applicant said yes . Planner Arkell asked for some clarification. She said if the lease for a tenant is prepared before construction and does not need one or more doors that the building would then not have the three doors on the north elevation. The applicant said they desire to have that element remain and those doors may satisfy second exit requirements, so the north elevation would not change. Walt Willet asked if the flexibility is for before the building is built or after. The applicant stated that this style allows for the flexibility to discuss the inset at a later date in order to meet the loading depth requirement . John DeHaas asked if the applicant realized that if there was a difference in building design the change would come before the DRB again. The applicant stated that he had no problem with that process . John DeHaas stated that he just was making sure that the applicant knew that when changes are made it isn' t affecting just the building for one industry or one or two businesses but that it might change the envelope of the building. He commented that any building change except internally is to be looked at by DRB. Kim Walker asked what the staff' s position is on the proposed project. Planner Arkell stated she recommends approval with the conditions as outlined, with any additions or changes the Board agrees on. Kim Walker noted that the project could be tabled by DRB if more info or changes are needed. John DeHaas asked what the difference between tabling it and recommending disapproval so that the applicants brought it back at a later date. Kim Walker stated that the difference is time constraints . Planner Arkell pointed out that for a tabled item the applicant would have to get revised plans to her by August 2 for the information to be put in the packets for August 8 meeting. Kim Walker noted for the applicant that they may risk denial without changes to the plans . Kim Walker moved, seconded by Paul Gleye, to recommend approval with the staff conditions with a modification to #4 that parapet walls be changed to another treatment acceptable to staff and DRB and the addition that DRB see any changes to the building and that the applicant consider some articulation to the roof line to break up the expanse. Ed McCrone stated he was confused by the motion. The motion was seconded by Paul Gleye so it could be discussed. Kim Walker reviewed what the motion included. Mara-Gai Katz questioned if that meant they could bring it back with no articulation changes . Planner Arkell stated she understood the motion as recommending approval with final site plan approval assuring the 8 conditions were met and that the roof articulation was only a suggestion. She said they could come back with the same articulation plan they have now. Kim Walker asked if she could withdraw her motion. Planner Arkell that she in fact could. Kim Walker withdrew the motion. Kim Walker moved, seconded by John DeHaas , to table the review of this project so the applicant can address issues raised by the Board. Planner Arkell noted that the Board must make a decision within 14 days of having tabled the project review. Kim Walker stated the Board can ask permission from the applicant to table it again the next time if necessary. Planner Arkell confirmed they could or that the applicant could ask the Board to table it until further notice. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote of the members present. Kim Walker reiterated for the applicant' s representative the issues of concern to the Board as : consider articulation of the roof line to break up the long- flat expanse, particularly the line of the roof . She added that it appeared the Board members were in agreement that all other staff recommended conditions were needed. 5. Main Mall ZCA Z-9572 Planner Arkell stated that this review is not to be voted on but to receive input from the Board concerning this Zoning Code Amendment as it will affect signage which they will be reviewing in the future. Planner Arkell reviewed present signage code which includes 400 square foot allowed for 1, 000 square foot building. In the case of the Main Mall, she pointed out that with a multi- tenant building having anchor tenants a larger treatment may not be as critical as a multi- tenant area such as Albertson' s . Planner Arkell shared several possible recommendations for changing the signage requirements with the Board. Ed McCrone stated that Planner Arkell I s point in her summary report that the building itself is a sign was good and that another larger sign would be counter productive. John DeHaas stated that the change request is ridiculous and will make the whole building a bill board. He said it seems we are going back to gigantic signs after trying to eliminate gross signs . Kim Walker asked if the Main Mall will be going through the review process also . Planner Arkell said due to the road widening the free standing sign at the mall will be coming down. Planner Arkell stated that the key is not just how the signage will affect the Main Mall but how it will affect the other multi- tenant stores with over 100, 000 square feet of floor area. Paul Gleye stated that it would help him to have a brief calculation of what is non-conforming and other examples of what it would look like when conforming. Planner Arkell stated that time would not allow her to do that. Kim Walker stated that it would be better to have more time to look at the proposal . Planner Arkell stated that what the applicant is proposing the staff can' t support and that more review time could be beneficial . C. Open & Continue to August 8, 1995 1. Best Western Sign COA Z-9587 Planner Skelton sent a memo to the Board members stating that the applicant had asked that this item be opened and continued until the next meeting. 2. Wong's Sign COA Z-9577 Planner Morris left a note indicating that the applicant desired this item to be opened and continued until the next meeting.