Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-11-1996 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1996 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN 3:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: John DeHaas, Roger Cruwys, Kim Walker, Walt Willett, Paul Gleye, Mara-Gai Katz, and Ed McCrone STAFF PRESENT: Debbie Arkell, Dean Patterson, Andrew Epple, Jody Olsen, Carol Schott VISITORS PRESENT: T.R. Hendricks, Jeff Kack, Michael and Katy Derzay, Wendy Cowdrey, Gene Micolio, Tony Hulin, Jeff Downhour, Kate Maxfield, Pete Stein, Steven Gray, David Coey, Thomas Bourdeaux, Gerry Gaston A. CONSENT ITEMS 1. Kack MiSP/COA Z-9650 - (Arkell) 201 Evergreen Drive - A Minor Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to construct an 8930 sq. ft. footprint, 2-story office structure in the Evergreen Business Park, I-90 Entryway Overlay District. Vice-Chairperson Kim Walker called the meeting to order. She asked if any of the Board members wanted either of the Consent Items removed from the Consent Agenda. The Board had concerns about the Rodeway Inn and removed it from the Consent Agenda. Vice-Chairperson Walker noted that there were no objections to the Kack MiSP/COA. A motion was made and seconded to approve Consent Agenda Item #1. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1996 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN 3:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: John DeHaas, Roger Cruwys, Kim Walker, Walt Willett, Paul Gleye, Mara-Gai Katz, and Ed McCrone STAFF PRESENT: Debbie Arkell, Dean Patterson, Andrew Epple, Jody Olsen, Carol Schott VISITORS PRESENT: T.R. Hendricks, Jeff Kack, Michael and Katy Derzay, Wendy Cowdrey, Gene Micolio, Tony Hulin, Jeff Downhour, Kate Maxfield, Pete Stein, Steven Gray, David Coey, Thomas Bourdeaux, Gerry Gaston B. CONTINUED ITEM 1. Coey COA Z-9642 - (Patterson) 313 South 5th - A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow construction of a dormer to accommodate a second dwelling unit and residing of the house. Planner Dean Patterson presented the project. He noted that the applicant has submitted plans for the porch roof and blocked the view of the stairwell by enclosing the area under it for storage. He continued that the applicant doesn't want the stairs to join the roof as he was concerned about people climbing onto the roof from the stair landing. He also noted that the applicant couldn't locate windows similar to the ones on the front of the building. The applicant proposed no window changes. Planner Patterson noted that Staff will prefer some type of double hung window as being appropriate. Mr. McCrone asked if there were any problems with any of the windows. Mr. Coey noted that the rear window can't be seen. He also noted that the only part of the stairs that can be seen from the street is the top rail. Mr. Willett noted that the design shows the roof configuration. Mr. Willett moved, Mr. DeHaas seconded, that the project be approved as submitted with no conditions. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. 2 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1996 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN 3:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: John DeHaas, Roger Cruwys, Kim Walker, Walt Willett, Paul Gleye, Mara-Gai Katz, and Ed McCrone STAFF PRESENT: Debbie Arkell, Dean Patterson, Andrew Epple, Jody Olsen, Carol Schott VISITORS PRESENT: T.R. Hendricks, Jeff Kack, Michael and Katy Derzay, Wendy Cowdrey, Gene Micolio, Tony Hulin, Jeff Downhour, Kate Maxfield, Pete Stein, Steven Gray, David Coey, Thomas Bourdeaux, Gerry Gaston A. CONSENT ITEMS 2. Rodeway Inn MaSP/COA Z-9651 - (Patterson) 2005 Wheat Drive - A Major Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to construct a 50 unit motel and covered pool with lounge in the I-90 Entryway Overlay District. The item was removed from the consent agenda and Vice-Chairperson Walker asked the applicants, T.R. Hendricks and Wendy Cowdrey, to join DRB at the table. Planner Patterson reviewed the project. He noted that the drawings on display show how the conditions from the Staff report will be met. Vice-Chairperson Walker noted concerns that the conditions are too open-ended and whether the changes would be re- submitted to DRB. Specifically condition #4 - the protruding elements shouldn't have to be used on all sides of the building. She asked Planner Patterson to go over the conditions and state if they have been met. Planner Patterson presented Condition #l. He noted that #lc has been done. Mr. Hendricks noted that there is a concrete retaining wall with railing on it. Discussion ensued on the slope, the retaining wall, and screening. Discussion followed an explanation by Planner Patterson of condition #la.. The condition was changed to read "The parking lot at the east corner of the site shall be screened from the street. This shall be accomplished by landscaping around parking stalls within roughly 75 feet of the street east property line. The screening shall be roughly 8 feet wide and 4-6 feet high. The landscaping shall emphasize seasonal coloring and lower growing shrubs. Condition #lb was left as is. Mr. Cruwys inquired about using all the grade along the retaining wall and if there are parking spaces there. He asked Mr. Hendricks to explain. Mr. Cruwys was satisfied with 3 the answer. Mr. Hendricks explained, also, that landscaping will be installed between the wall and the property line. Mr. Cruwys stated that the landscaping was adequate. Condition #2 - Planner Patterson noted that striping may be needed to encourage pedestrians to stay out of the driveway and also pavers shall be required to connect the sidewalk between the upper and lower parking areas to the building entry. Mr. DeHaas is concerned about striping as it is covered with snow 9 months of the year. He'd like to see something more physical installed to mark the walkways. Mr. Cruwys doesn't see any need for striping for pedestrians. Discussion followed on pavers and striping. Mr. Gleye concurred with Mr. Cruwys on the striping. The committee decided to eliminate condition #2. Condition #3 - Planner Patterson stated that the condition is a standard lighting condition. Condition #4 - Vice Chairperson Walker noted that it is too vague. Planner Patterson explained that the condition was made to address the long flat facade elevations. Discussion ensued on the variation in the facades of the building. The Board decided that all elevations except the west elevation have enough relief. Mr. Gleye noted that the west elevation needs some addressing. Discussion ensued on facade relief using texture, trees, etc. The condition was edited to read, "Protruding elements shall be used on the 'west' elevations of the building to add texture to the facades." Sentence two was eliminated. Vice-Chairperson Walker added that the changes to the west elevation be approved by Planning Staff. Condition #5 - Planner Patterson noted that the applicant would like to keep the gazebo-type sign. Staff noted the sign's pole-type status and suggested a reduced size to meet the Design Objectives Plan and the area requirements. Ms. Cowdrey noted that the franchise will require the monument sign. Mr. Gleye asked if they could have a wall sign. Planner Patterson confirmed. Mr. McCrone asked if there was a provision to allow additional signage since they face the interstate. Planner Patterson noted that the facing of the interstate and signage is being addressed in the revision of the Code. Planner Patterson suggested building a real gazebo for people, making it an accessory structure, then putting a wall sign on it. Discussion ensued on side yards and the gazebo. Vice-Chairperson Walker asked if the applicant could apply for a deviation and put up a second sign. Assistant Planning Director Arkell noted that could be done if there was a hardship reason. Mr. Gleye noted that there are two possibilities. (1) Apply for a variance, or (2) build a gazebo and put a wall sign on it. Mr. Cruwys asked if the gazebo would be the same as shown. Mr. Hendricks noted that it would be the same. Mr. Cruwys suggested replacing some lindens with coniferous trees such as Swiss pine. Planner Patterson noted that there would have to be roughly double the evergreen trees to make up for the deciduous trees. Mr. Cruwys noted that the applicants should 4 remove 3 lindens and insert 6 evergreens along the periphery. He wants this to be part of condition #1. The Board agreed to eliminate all of condition #5 except for the first sentence, then add with the added recommendation that the applicants apply for a variance for a 2nd pole sign or build the gazebo as a usable auxiliary structure." Condition #6 - Mr. Hendricks explained the color scheme. The Board agreed with the condition as it was written. Mr. DeHaas noted that there needs to be a ramp into the entryway. Mr. Hendricks noted he will consider it. Condition #7 - The Board agreed with the condition as it was written. Ms. Katz moved, Paul seconded, to recommend approval of the application based on the amended conditions of Design Review Board. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. 5