Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-1999 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1999 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Kim Walker called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance, Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Kim Walker (None) Dave Skelton Jeff Fox Mara-Gai Katz Debbie Arkell Ralph Jorgis Ed McCrone Andrew Epple Daniel Tansy Bill Hanson Carol Schott Henry Sorenson Dick Pohl Joanne Mannell Noel Dan Glenn ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 1999 Chairperson Walker asked for corrections or additions to the minutes of April 13, 1999. Ms. Katz noted a grammatical error on page 4, paragraph 4, second line - "is" should be changed to "are". MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. McCrone seconded the motion, which carried 4-0. ITEM 3. CONSENT AGENDA Split Rock Telecom MiSP/COA#Z-9951 - (Skelton) 31842 East Frontage Road - A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the placement of a telecommunications remote relay station on property zoned "M-1". Light Manufacturing District and Entryway Overlay District. MOTION: Chairperson Walker moved to remove application#Z-9951 from the consent agenda and to continue the review until May 11, 1999. Mr. Hanson seconded the motion, which carried 4-0. Design Review Board Minutes-April 27, t999 1 ITEM 4. REGULAR AGENDA A. Baxter Creek Business Park Zoning PUD #Z-9939 - (Arkell) West of Billion Auto Plaza, north of U.S. 191 A Planned Unit Development Application to allow the development of an eight lot subdivision for commercial uses. (Open and continue to 5111 until additional information is submitted) MOTION: Chairperson Walker moved to open and continue application#Z-9939 until Ma 11, 1999. Mr. Hanson seconded the motion, which carried 4-0. y B. Aspen Meadows Apartments MaSP/COA#Z-9921 - (Berger) 1062 Oak Street - A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of twelve 4-plex apartment buildings and related site improvements. (Continued from April 13, 1999) Jeff Fox joined the DRB. In the absence of Planner Therese Berger, Planning Director Andrew Epple presented the revised elevations. Mr. Fox noted the changes made - the additions of windows, door covers, and addition of color. (Mr. Sorenson arrived.) He noted porches, which wrap around the corner, have been added on the rear elevations around the back doors. He presented the materials, color samples, and elevations that represented the color palette. Mr. Hanson asked for the slope on the porch covers, to which Mr. Fox replied 3:1. Mr. Fox noted the applicant is leaning towards vinyl clad windows. Mr. Hanson asked for the composition of the shingles. Mr. Fox presented a sample. Discussion followed on the roof pitches and the placement of the windows. Mr. Hanson commented that the window pattern has changed and the little windows will be very high. In response to Mr. Hanson, Mr. Fox noted the eaves extend 3 1/2 feet from the wall. Mr. Hanson noted the applicant may need posts to support them. He noted the porch roof additions break up the large expanses. He suggested using only two colors for the building, noting his preference is for the white and brown. He commended the new fenestration, noting it is an improvement, however, he had hoped the form of the building would have changed. Ms. Katz concurred with Mr. Hanson's comments, and noted the addition of the low roofs is an improvement. She noted the pitches or the roof extensions seem out of proportion. In response to Ms. Katz, Mr. Fox noted the roofs extend three feet over the front doors. Chairperson Walker asked if posts have to be added to support the roof extension, would the application have to come back to the DRB. Planning Director Epple noted that type of modification would be reviewed in house. Mr. Sorenson discussed the white strip that separates the two levels, noting if it is a piece of siding, it probably is not be adequate. Ms. Katz noted that the board/strip needs to be a relief of color and texture and offer visual relief. She and Mr. Sorenson suggested the addition of a belly Design Review Board Minutes-April 27,1999 2 board in place of the siding strip. Mr. Sorenson noted he feels the belly board should be the same width as the fascia. Mr. McCrone noted he was in favor of the belly board and the color of it would be enough to provide the separation between the two floors. He commended the applicant for making the roof pitch changes. (Dan Glenn arrived.) Chairperson Walker reviewed the conditions, noting conditions #3a and#3b need to be left in even though they have been met. She noted that condition#3c can be left as is or modified and clarified. She asked if there needs to be a condition to give some guidance on the color since only options have been offered. Mr. Fox noted the owner likes the use of three colors and has a structure in Belgrade with those colors. Chairperson Walker noted her concern is with the drastic color contrast. Planning Director Epple noted that either of the two-color schemes would be acceptable to the Planning Staff. Mr. McCrone noted there is a subtle difference with these materials as they are prefinished. He would prefer see the use of a single color with a white band. In response to a question, Mr. Fox noted the doors will be white as he doesn't want to add another color to the palette. Mr. Hanson noted that any one of the colors would be great with a white band. Chairperson Walker noted that the other issue to be resolved is the possible addition of posts to support the roof. Mr. Fox noted if any are required to support the eave, they would be white clad posts. MOTION: Chairperson Walker moved to approve the application as submitted with the code requirements and conditions#1, #2, and#3 with#3a and#3b as is, and with#3c to read "each building is to be of a single color with white trim, with the single color of each building being the brown, beige, or green presented to the Design Review Board by the Applicant on April 27, 1999, and the addition of#3d) "incorporate a distinct horizontal band, of equal or greater dimension as the fascia, that indents or projects from the plane of the wall to create a strong shadow line between the first and second stories." Mr. McCrone seconded the motion. Ms. Katz noted the "height of fascia" should be inserted. Planning Director Epple noted that he and Mr. Fox understand the motion. The motion carried 5-0 on a voice vote. Mr. Fox asked if all of the buildings will be the same color. The Board clarified that each building will be one color, however, the colors can be alternated. Discussion followed on the patios and how they will back up to the doors. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT The e being no fu her business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Kim Walker, Chairperson Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-April 27,1999 3