Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-28-1995 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1995 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL,411 EAST MAIN 3:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Cliff Chisholm, Chairperson John DeHaas Roger Cruwys Kim Walker Walt Willet Paul Gleye STAFF PRESENT: Andy Epple, Planning Director Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Dean Patterson, Associate Planner/Urban Designer Derek Strahn, Historic Preservation Officer Carol Schott, Recording Secretary VISITORS PRESENT: John Tengelsen Robert Dougherty Ken Thorsen Joe Laudon Linda Bell Cindy Goldstein Gene Mickolio Chairperson Cliff Chisholm called the meeting to order. A. PROJECT REVIEWS 1. Lattice COA-#Z-95150 - (Skelton) 516 E. Tamarack - A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of a 24'X 40'metal building for storage purposes. Planner Dave Skelton gave a brief presentation of the project. He noted the location on the wall map. It is near the rear of the Lehrkind Mansion. DRC required no conditions for this project. The Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the project. Several neighbors have signed a petition for a buffer zone between the project and the historic district. Staff found the property to be zoned as M-1, therefore no set backs are required. Staff has two options for protecting the affected properties. 1.)Plant deciduous and coniferous trees on east side or move the building to the south. Equipment storage area could be moved to south and existing quaking aspens would screen. 2.) Screen east, south, and west sides. Staff is recommending that DRB consider approval with seven conditions. Ms. Walker inquired as to the exact height of the fence which is shown as 7' on the site plan. Planner Skelton stated that in fact the fence is actually 5`high. Ms. Walker inquired as to the material that will top the fence on the three sides. Planner Skelton stated that is up to the discretion of the DRB. It could be slats,trees,whatever. Ms.Walker inquired why trees were being suggested. Planner Skelton stated they provide high profile screening. Ms. Walker inquired as to whom would review any changes made in screening-DRB or Planning Staff. Planner Skelton stated that Planning Staff would review any changes in screening as stated in condition #5. Chairperson Chisholm asked Mr. Tengelsen to join them at the conference table. Mr. Gleye inquired of Mr. Tengelsen as to what would be stored in the outside storage area. Mr. Tengelsen stated that equipment they buy at auctions can be stored for up to six months. Mr. Gleye stated that the proposed building isn't visible from any public rights-of-way. He stated that this is an appropriate application. A row of trees would be a reasonable request. As far as screening, the Applicant needs to decide where to store the equipment and screen it according to code. Ms. Walker stated that she had no problems with the roof or windows. She stated that screening on all boundaries is not appropriate. There already is a fence across the alley. Only the backs of two houses and the back of the Lehrkind garage are visible from the proposed building site. Mr. Tengelsen explained the "green, employee space". The City has put in a 2" water main along the west side. There's no water or power in the cold storage area. The west side does have opaque fencing. There is little outdoor storage on the property now. Ms. Walker stated that its more important to do improvements to the east side of the building. It's too much to require the applicant to screen all three boundaries. She expressed confusion on conditions 4A and 4B. They are in contradiction of one another. Planner Skelton explained that both are options for the applicant. Ms. Walker asked for an explanation of the improvements agreement. Planner Skelton stated that in this case it allows the applicant to install whatever DRB requires within 9 months. Mr. Epple stated that all conditions will be imposed by DRB. Ms.Walker stated that she agrees with all conditions except the planting of coniferous trees. Mr. Cruwys stated that the combination of deciduous and coniferous trees is good for holding snow. The coniferous trees provide screening in the winter also. Mr. DeHaas inquired of Mr. Tengelsen the type of materials that will be stored. Mr. Tengelsen stated that the materials are primarily construction materials such as siding etc. Mr. DeHaas stated that he'd like to see a steeper pitch on the roof. The mixture of trees will be good. The green area for employees is good. DRB may have to bend a little in this case as it isn't a residential area but an industrial area. It is commendable that they are willing to the additional landscaping. The applicant may not need to landscape all three sides. A playground aura isn't necessary. Mr. Cruwys inquired if there is a reason as to why the building is where it is. Mr. Tengelsen stated that the owners of the Lehrkind mansion have contacted them for possible purchase of a parking area. With the new building on the proposed site,there is room for future expansion if the company deems it necessary. Mr. Cruwys stated that if the building were in the westerly area,no screening would be needed on the east and south. It seems awkward to put the building in that spot. Mr. Tengelsen stated that the main access to the current building is on the south end. The proposed building would back along the current fence-line extension and allow the property to the east to be sold. He inquired as to why they needed to screen both the property and the building. Mr. Cruwys stated that peripheral screening is needed. Mr. Tengelsen inquired if slats could be put into the fence. Mr. Cruwys stated that it is more important to screen the building, but not necessarily the property. Increasing the pitch could increase the storage. However the pitch of the old building is rather flat. Mr. Chisholm stated that the applicant wants to use the M-1 zoning which backs up to a historical district. Code allows a slatted chain link fence,however the Board has expressed on prior projects that it doesn't feel that a slatted chain link fence is neighborly. Vegetation is much friendlier screening. Screening needs to be simple and low profile. He suggested installing vegetative screening adjacent to the Lehrkind property. Allow the rest of the property to be seen. Mr. Gleye inquired about the improvements planned for the employee area. Mr. Tengelson stated that curbing runs the whole 320'to the southern end of the building. They have installed a sprinkler system, trees,picnic tables, and grass. There followed discussion of the creek way,trail system, and walkway. Mr. Gleye stated that he has changed his opinion from what he stated in the beginning. The proposed site is hidden from view. He is impressed with what Lattice is doing voluntarily. He suggested approval of the application as submitted with a proviso that whatever needs to be screened according to the zoning ordinance be done and have some formal agreement for the landscaping commitment. Ms. Walker inquired if that meant removing conditions 3 and 4. She'd rather have an allowance for the applicant to do the landscaping voluntarily. The group agreed to the removing of conditions 3 and 4. Mr. Cruwys stated that he'd rather not see the proposed building right up to the property/fence line if the east side is sold for parking. Ms. Walker moved,Mr. Gleye seconded,that the application be approved excluding conditions 3 and 4A from the Staff Recommendations, changing 4B to require the applicant to screen future storage area to comply with zone code,reword condition#5 that the corrections and modifications approved by the DRB shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director within two (2)months of the date of DRB approval, and an additional condition that the Applicant provide a written agreement with an attached site plan for the west side for review and approval of the Planning Staff. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1995 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL,411 EAST MAIN 3:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Cliff Chisholm, Chairperson John DeHaas Roger Cruwys Kim Walker Walt Willet Paul Gleye STAFF PRESENT: Andy Epple, Planning Director Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Dean Patterson,Associate Planner/Urban Designer Derek Strahn,Historic Preservation Officer Carol Schott,Recording Secretary VISITORS PRESENT: John Tengelsen Robert Dougherty Ken Thorsen Joe Laudon Linda Bell Cindy Goldstein Gene MickoIio 2. Thorsen MiSP/COA#Z-95126 - (Patterson) 617 East Lamme - A continued review of the Minor Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness Application for the Construction of a 20' X 32' garage/workshop with a one bedroom apartment. Planner Dean Patterson reviewed the project. He reminded members of the Staff conditions. He stated that he has received two letters of objection relating to the use of the alley. A notice of appeal was begun,but the written appeal was not filed. Mr. Ken Thorsen and Mr. Robert Dougherty joined the Board at the conference table. Mr. Gleye complimented the improved design of the building. He stated that the parapet is appropriate as it is modest. It is in keeping with a building such as this. He liked the alternative elevation. Ms.Walker stated that she preferred the alternative design. The rest of the building is simplified enough to allow the parapet. She suggested removing condition 1. Mr. DeHaas stated that he still doesn't like the parapet. It doesn't do anything for the building. However he doesn't object to the new submittal with a parapet. He inquired if DRB has to be concerned about the alley problem. Mr. Dougherty explained that the City wants the alley and is in the process of having it dedicated to the City. Mr. Thorsen stated that the City Attorney has agreed that the alley will become City property and all property owners along the alley will have access. Mr. Cruwys stated that he would take both sides of the issue. He likes the parapet wall. It is not obtrusive. The over-design of the building has been cleaned up extensively. He stated that false fronts and facades may not give anything to architecture. Ms. Walker inquired where the P reduction is in the building. Mr. Dougherty stated that it no longer is a factor. Mr. Epple stated that condition#2 was not now needed. Planner Patterson agreed. Mr. Willett inquired if the 21.5'height is acceptable to the Applicant. Mr. Chisholm inquired if they would want to increase the height to the same as the other building. Mr. Dougherty stated that no, in fact, it would save substantially not to add the 1'. 21.5' is the intended height of the proposed building. Ms. Walker moved, Mr. Cruwys seconded,that the application be approved with the elimination of conditions 1 and 2, leaving 3 and 4 in tact. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY,NOVEMBER 28, 1995 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN 3:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Cliff Chisholm, Chairperson John DeHaas Roger Cruwys Kim Walker Walt Willet Paul Gleye STAFF PRESENT: Andy Epple, Planning Director Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Dean Patterson,Associate Planner/Urban Designer Derek Strahn,Historic Preservation Officer Carol Schott,Recording Secretary VISITORS PRESENT: John Tengelsen Robert Dougherty Ken Thorsen Joe Laudon Linda Bell Cindy Goldstein Gene Mickolio 3. Fullerton Office Bldg MiSP/COA/DEV#Z-95145 -(Patterson) 15 West Olive - A Minor Site Plan Application and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviation to allow signage, landscaping, and paving of the parking lot. Deviation is to allow parking lot screening along the street to be less than an 8'width. Planner Dean Patterson reviewed the project. Cindy Goldstein joined the Board at the conference table. Planner Patterson stated that there are two adjacent pieces of property with existing structures, which are zoned B-3. Land use in the area is largely churches, a couple of residences, and some businesses. The Applicant wants to consolidate the parking lots and accesses, then pave, curb, landscape, and provide signage. Staff has two concerns -- (L)the loss of trees on the lot, and (2.)the deviation reducing the required 8 feet of landscaped parking lot screening down to the width needed for a hedge. Staff saw no apparant parking alternative to avoid losing the trees. Staff supports the deviation as it provides more parking, which is need in the B-3 District. Planner Patterson stated Staffs recommenation that screening be included on both the south and west sides of the parking spaces south of the Willson Avenue building in order to mitigate the deviation. DRB will make a recommendation to the City Commission. Discussion followed on the amount of proposed parking spaces and the number paid for by US West for the Downtown Parking SID. Mr. DeHaas stated than an 8' wide hedge seems too wide. It's regrettable that trees have to be removed,however in the essence of parking requirements,they may have to be. He stated that the idea of reducing the access to Willson Avenue is good. The project also eliminates a driveway. Points should be given for improving the parking situation. Mr. Cruwys stated that he is concerned about the removal of the trees. He presented a sketch to save two of the trees and lose only one parking space. He inquired if there is a rigid requirement for the parking lot driving aisles. Discussion followed on how many feet were needed for driveway/backup maneuverability. Mr. Epple stated that 26'is standard. In response to an inquiry as to where the trees are located on the two properties, Ms. Goldstein stated that the trees are on the property line. If one building should be sold,then parking could be a problem. She explained the proposed landscaping and parking needs. Mr. Cruwys noted that parking is still a problem if one property was sold. Mr. Chisholm inquired as to the number of parking spaces required and do the SID parking spaces go with the property when it is sold. Also,was the Applicant trying to plan for the most parking spaces or save trees. Ms. Goldstein stated that she is after parking spaces, however if trees can be saved, she'd rather do that. Discussion ensued on the number of trees existing, and parking spaces needed and proposed. Mr. Cruwys stated that reversing the aisle would save some trees. The street tree planting does mitigate the loss of the trees on the parking lot. He also stated that DRB and the Applicant want to finalize the best possible plan. If trees are cut down, they need to be replaced elsewhere. The question is what do the Applicants intend. Ms. Goldstein stated that she tried to save as many trees as possible,but to meet the parking requirements, she had to propose removing them. Mr. Epple explained how the determination of required parking spaces works. The purchasing of additional parking spaces needs approval of the Parking Commission. Ms. Walker stated that DRB needs to decide what its opinion is. Mr. Gleye inquired if she was proposing 5 street trees. He suggested she take Mr. Cruwys sketch and try to make it work,then come back next meeting with a revised plan. Mr. Cruwys stated that he has no problem with the street trees. Mr. Willett stated that a full hedge, as noted in condition 3, on both sides does away with the open effect of the site. Some screening on the south side might be okay,but screening the west side takes away from the visual effect of the whole building. He would rather see some vegetative screening other than a hedge. Mr. Gleye agreed. He stated that DRB could look at the whole screening situation the next time. Mr. DeHaas moved,Ms. Walker seconded,that this project be tabled until the next meeting,to investigate saving as many trees as possible. Ms.Walker stated that for efficiency, only these two items will be discussed at the next meeting. Any other concerns should be handled today. Mr. Chisholm inquired of Planner Patterson about the existing sign. Planner Patterson stated that it doesn't conform with code. Mr. Chisholm stated that he would prefer to leave the existing sign. Ms. Goldstein stated that she is willing to conform to the sign code and has integrated the new sign into their plan. Planner Patterson explained the changes to be made in the sign. There was general discussion on complications of adding deviations for the sign,resulting in a decision to leave the signage issue alone. Motion to table the project carried unanimously by voice vote. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1995 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL,411 EAST MAIN 3:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Cliff Chisholm, Chairperson John DeHaas Roger Cruwys Kim Walker Walt Willet Paul Gleye STAFF PRESENT: Andy Epple, Planning Director Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Dean Patterson,Associate Planner/Urban Designer Derek Strahn,Historic Preservation Officer Carol Schott,Recording Secretary VISITORS PRESENT: John Tengelsen Robert Dougherty Ken Thorsen Joe Laudon Linda Bell Cindy Goldstein Gene Mickollo 4. Bobcat Pad MaSP #Z-95140 - (Patterson) 1818 Remington Way - A Major Site Plan Application to allow the construction of a 12 unit, 2 1/2 story, one bedroom, apartment building. Planner Dean Patterson reviewed the project. He explained the differences in the new submittal compared to the submittal contained in the DRB packets. Ms.Walker stated that she is concerned about making a decision today since she's not had time to review the new submittal. She'd like to table until next meeting. Mr. DeHaas agreed. He doesn't want to rush into a decision. Chairperson Chisholm polled the membership as to tabling the project. Discussion ensued on required parking spaces. It was decided that there are just enough parking spaces in the plan. Backup space was also discussed. Chairperson Chisholm wanted to see a site plan that shows exactly what is going to be done. Mr. DeHaas suggested reducing the number of units in the structure. Mr. Chisholm moved, Ms. Walker seconded,that the project be tabled for re-submittal at the next meeting. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY,NOVEMBER 28, 1995 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL,411 EAST MAIN 3:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Cliff Chisholm, Chairperson John DeHaas Roger Cruwys Kim Walker Walt Willet Paul GIeye STAFF PRESENT: Andy Epple, Planning Director Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Dean Patterson,Associate Planner/Urban Designer Derek Strahn, Historic Preservation Officer Carol Schott,Recording Secretary VISITORS PRESENT: John Tengelsen Robert Dougherty Ken Thorsen Joe Laudon Linda Bell Cindy Goldstein Gene Mickolio 5. New Lockie COA/DEV-#Z-95131 - (Strahn) 505 North Church - A Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations Application to allow an addition to the rear including a stair to the basement on the exterior; restoration of main gables; additions to the living room and kitchen with an enlarged front porch; and the removal and replacement of a rear covered porch. Historic Preservation Officer Derek Strahn reviewed the project. Linda Bell joined the DRB at the conference table. Mr. Strahn explained the main difference in this application and the last one,that being that the Applicants are unable to use the current foundation. They need to replace it, they want to include windows, a basement, and a rear addition with stairs that will provide access. The deviations are to allow encroachments into the front and side yards. Staff supports the plan. Only one condition is on this project-the building permit must be obtained within one year of the COA approval or the approval becomes null and void. Mr. Gleye inquired as to why this project is back before DRB. Mr. Strahn explained that the original proposal didn't include the replacement of the foundation or the addition of the windows,basement, and rear addition. Mr. Gleye stated that there is no problem with the changes. Mr. DeHaas stated that the intent of this project is for a one family unit. Ms. Bell agreed and stated that no plumbing is included. Mr. DeHaas stated that he doesn't want it to become a basement apartment as then there could be a problem with off street parking. Mr. DeHaas moved, Ms. Walker seconded, that the project be approved. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Chisholm adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m.