Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-22-1997 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY,APRIL 22, 1997 Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Mara-Gai Katz Ed McCrone Debbie Arkell Mike O'Leary Roger Cruwys Kith Walker Dean Patterson Wendy Tage Rich Noonan Andrew Epple Ben Lloyd Paul Gleye Carol Schott Don Bockhahn Walt Willett C. Vandetjagt Cliff Chisholm Joan Rudberg Gene Mickoho Tom Milleson Dan Kamp Lowell Springer ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Cliff Chisholm called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. He directed the secretary to record the attendance. ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 1997, MEETING The minutes of the April 8, 1997,meeting were unavailable. ITEM 3. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Montana Kids Child Care Facility MiSP/COA#Z-9731 -(Arkell) 1105 Campbell Road - A Minor Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of a 1728 sq. ft. (footprint)3-car garage with day care center classrooms and facilities on the main level. Chairperson Chisholm asked if anyone in the general public,the Board,or the applicants had asked for the item to be removed from the Consent Agenda. MOTION: Hearing no request for removal,he moved approval of the application as per Staff conditions. Mr. Willett seconded the motion,which carried 6 - 0. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEWS A. Van's County Market COA#Z-9732- (Patterson) 912 North 7th Avenue - A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to alter the facades of the current building. Mike O'Leary joined the DRB. Planner Dean Patterson reviewed the project and the Design Design Review Board Minutes-April 22,1997 1 Objectives Plan Guidelines that apply to the project(Staff report on file in the Planning Office). Chairperson Chisholm asked for questions for Staff from the Board. Hearing none,he asked the applicant to explain his present views compared to the informal submittal he presented a few weeks ago. Mr. O'Leary apologized for the changes. He noted that the reasons for the changes are 1)the impression the preliminary design suggested to corporate management was of opulence. The impression that they wish to convey is one of economy. 2) On the technical side,the construction as originally proposed would have brought the building right out to the edge of the sidewalk. Mr. O'Leary continued that the corporate management came back with a more horizontal design, using more subdued colors, and eliminating the entryway atrium and the reflective glass panels. The goal is still to emphasize the entrance. To achieve this goal,the canopy comes farther over the main entrance and the glass is higher over the secondary entrance. He was willing to further emphasize the entrance. Chairperson Chisholm asked what the material of the facia would be. Mr. O'Leary noted it would be prefinished metal. He then clarified the technical reasons for the changes. He continued that the current plan is for the front of the building to expand almost to the edge of the sidewalk. Mr. Noonan inquired how far the canopy comes out from the building face. Using a drawing,Mr. O'Leary explained. Mr. Gleye asked if the revised drawing is financially more efficient. Mr. O'Leary noted that the reduction of reflective glass and other glass has reduced the cost. He continued that other cost issues have been addressed by using a cantilevered canopy among other things. Mr.Noonan noted that the secondary door has become more dominant. Mr. O'Leary noted that he can address that. Chairperson Chisholm asked how that could be accomplished. Mr. O'Leary noted that the upper level treatments could be brought down to the eye level and a very slightly recessed secondary doorway and window treatments could be used. Chairperson Chisholm noted that buildings such as these that tend to be rather plain; this one has some relief with colors, shadows, and flags at the top comers. He suggested adding some light fixtures to add interest. Ms. Katz asked why the windows extend between the doorways and not beyond. Mr. O'Leary noted that windows are not necessary in the storage area,however,they could be added above eye level. Ms. Katz noted that if the automatic doors in the second access were solid colored, they would blend and become less dominant. Mr. O'Leary noted he hadn't seen solid automatic doors, however, it is a good idea. W. Cruwys noted that this is a cleaner, simpler design than presented in the informal, which is Design Review Board Minutes-April 22,1997 2 acceptable to him. Mr. Willett disagreed with Mr. Cruwys as the informal drawing was asymmetrical and pleasing to the eye. He noted that he disagrees with Staff on the signage. The sign for Planet Bronze is a stately sign and the signage for the Post Office and band work well at the other end of the building. Mr. O'Leary addressed other items in the Staff report. He noted that the applicants are attempting to compete with the incoming wholesale grocery market . He continued that this store is locally owned and has limited finances for renovations. He continued that the exterior painting condition is a concern as the building exterior was totally repainted four years ago. He noted that the applicant plans for the new design to wrap around the corners of the front facad. The applicant plans to repaint the other elevations in a few years, not the 20-30 years as in the Staff report. He noted that the roof top screening is often not appealing. He is asking to have the screening waived as the mechanical equipment is existing. He offered to do some design work that will imitate windows on the front facade where windows had been shown in the informal presentation. Next he discussed signage. He noted that the Van's County Market sign will be and should be the largest sign. The applicant doesn't want to change the Planet Bronze's signage as it was a costly sign and is attractive. He added that they want to add "Pharmacy" to the north end signage. Planning Director Andrew Epple noted that the object was to balance the signage by emphasizing the Post Office and Bank signs. Mr. O'Leary noted that they could do something with dry-vit to emphasize the signage on the north end. Mr. Gleye noted that it's too bad that the marketing consultants have tried to make the building look cheap. He noted that the design guidelines are there to prevent that from happening. He continued that the entrance needs to be really emphasized. He noted that the current application has the welcoming entrance removed. He felt that the atrium enhances the main entrance and makes a formal presentation. He also noted that they haven't followed through with the "amber waves of grain" theme; he'd like to see them use that idea,however, it is a personal preference. He noted that the main entrance and the roof top screening are of importance. He continued that it is important that the repainting of the other facades be done, however, it wouldn't have to happen at this time. Mr. Willett asked if the proposed roofline has extended higher than the existing roof. Mr. O'Leary stated that it does not. He continued that the mechanical equipment is not visible. Planner Patterson noted that the mechanical equipment, four very large machines, is visible from Tamarack and 5th Avenues. Mr. O'Leary noted that he doesn't like poking holes in the roof as they eventually develop leaks. Chairperson Chisholm asked for discussion of any other critical issues that need to be included in a motion. Mr. Noonan noted that the screening is very necessary. The DRB has to look holistically at the Design Review Board Minutes-April 22,1997 3 building and decide what is best for the whole building. Ms. Katz noted that she doesn't agree with what has been said thus far. She noted that she felt the proposal is adequate and emphasizing the entrance more would indicate more cost inside. Mr. Cruwys concurred with Ms. Katz. He noted that if the mechanical equipment isn't visible, then don't screen it. If it isn't obtrusive,let it be. He concurred that something has to be done in the future about repainting the other facades. Mr. Willett noted that screening from the front is not necessary. He noted that when one is in the vicinity of the building, one doesn't see the mechanical equipment. He noted that the simplicity of the front facade can be inviting, yet emphasized. Chairperson Chisholm noted frustration with the roof top screening requirement of the Code. He asked for the distance from the sidewalk to the lowest section of the canopy. Mr. O'Leary noted the distance is ten feet. Chairperson Chisholm suggested some wall mounted light fixtures to emphasize the entrance. Ms. Katz noted that the vertical elements would to the interest of the entrance. She asked if there had been any consideration for the size of the mechanical equipment in comparison to the size of the building. Planning Director Epple explained the Code requirement. He then asked Mr. O'Leary if he wished to return to DRB with another rendering. Mr. O'Leary noted that he could, however, he planned to draw the building permits the early part of May. Mr. O'Leary noted that the main problem seems to be the lack of pattern along the front facade. Chairperson Chisholm noted that some embellishment of the front facade should be added to emphasize the entrance. Mr. Cruwys suggested that Staff review the rendering and not bring the application back to DRB. MOTION: Mr. Gleye moved, Mr. Cruwys seconded,that the application be conditionally approved subject to the applicant changing the entrance to a more welcoming statement subject to the review and approval of Staff, and secondly,that the rest of the building be required to be repainted to match the front facade within four years, with the understanding that there will be some wrap around of the front facade at this time. The motion carried 6 - 0. B. Carson Place Townhouses Zoning and Subdivision PUD's#Z-9726 &#P-9716 - 1304 West Babcock Street (Skelton) - A Zoning and Subdivision Planned Unit Development to allow a 19-unit townhouse complex with one townhouse building of six units. Don Bockhahn, Lowell Springer, and Gene Mickolio joined DRC. Senior Planner Dave Skelton reviewed the project, noting that this has been a five year project. He also noted the reason that this is a PUD is because a recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Board on scale and land use. He reviewed the background on subdivision PUD's and described the developments in Design Review Board Minutes-April 22,1997 4 this neighborhood. He referred to four key concepts from the DRB in the 1992 Informal Review. He continued stating that the applicant is striving to keep the cost of each unit under$100,000. Staff recommended eight conditions(the Staff Report is on file in the Planning Office). He then noted that the eighth condition doesn't apply. Chairperson Chisholm asked how many units were proposed in the original proposal. Planner Skelton noted that 22 were proposed with 19 in the current proposal. Mr. Cruwys inquired as to why there were six units in the one structure. Planner Skelton explained that clustered townhouse units up to five units per structure are allowed in the R-3 zoning district, while sux-plexes and apartments are permitted are in an R-4 zoning district. Mr. Gleye asked about deviations for this project. Planner Skelton noted that the PUD process relaxes the subdivision regulations to allow for a six-unit townhouse structure and street standards different from a full City Standard Street. Chairperson Chisholm asked the applicant to respond to the conditions. Mr. Springer noted that the conditions are not new as they have developed over the years. He noted that they are solving that problem with the property to the east. They are also hoping to put economic pressure on them to improve their property. He reviewed the agreement that Mr. Bockhahn made with his neighbor to the east. Mr. Gleye asked for the dimensions of the lot. Planner Skelton gave them. Mr. Gleye noted that this is an incredibly difficult lot to develop. He continued that he agrees with Staff s conditions, however,he was concerned with making some variation in the front facades of the buildings. Mr. Springer noted that with color variations and different treatments,there will be interest added. Mr. Willett asked which material is correct-the plot plan or the elevations. Planner Skelton noted that the elevations are old,the plot plans are correct. Ms. Katz commented that her concern with the elevations is that the garage is the focus of the front facades. She felt the entrances need to be more clearly articulated. Mr. Cruwys noted that the pedestrian walkway is rather different and asked if it was intended to be two easements. Mr. Springer noted that there are two easements, which have to be located where they are due to the layout of the lot, and the applicant would like to continue the walkway to connect with the walkway to the south. Discussion ensued on the extension of South 13th Street, changing the location of the open space, and the location of hedges and fences. Mr. Cruwys noted that it may be beneficial to move the six-plex to give more space for the trail system. He recommended the applicant talk to his neighbors to gain their input about having the trail/open space wider between the two subdivisions. Mr. Gleye concurred. He noted that if the six-plex were moved as far south as the setbacks allow,then there would be more usable space to the north. MOTION: Mr. Willett moved,Mr.Noonan seconded,to approve the application with Staff conditions, adding a condition to move the six-plex as far south as possible. MOTION: Chairperson Chisholm moved to amend the motion to modify condition#5 that at least two different entryway elevations to be used to embellish the front facades. The amendment was Design Review Board Minutes-April 2211997 5 seconded by Mr. Gleye. During the discussion Mr. Noonan noted that he doesn't feel that the amendment is necessary as there may be no need for any variation. Mr. Bockhahn and Mr. Springer noted that the variations would be feasible. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the variation could be vary slightly. The amendment carried 4 -2, with Chairperson Chisholm, Ms. Katz, Mr. Gleye, and Mr. McCrone voting for the amendment and Mr. Willett and Mr. Noonan voting against the amendment. The main motion carried 6 - 0. ITEM 4. PROJECT RE-REVIEW A. Grantree Canopy/Fuel Service Bays 1325 North 7th Avenue - A Re-review of the DRB condition requiring a mansard roof on the gas island canopy. Planning Director Andrew Epple noted that the applicants have asked that this application be continued to the next meeting. ITEM 5. INFORMAL REVIEW A. Grace Bible Church Informal#1-9721 -(Arkell) Stucky Road and S. 19th Avenue Tom Milleson and Dan Kamp joined the DRB. Associate Planning Director Debbie Arkell presented the project. She noted the proposal is for two accesses -one from Stucky and one from S. 19th. She continued with the height restrictions and the exceptions. Mr. Cruwys asked if the parking accommodates future expansion, thus removing the need to remove the asphalt to for the expansion. He commended the applicant for reflecting the parking lot with the geometry of the building. Mr. Gleye asked about the colors and materials to be used. Mr. Milleson noted that the building would be mostly dry-vit with stone trim and the colors would be subdued. Chairperson Chisholm asked Planner Arkell to describe the height limitations, which she did, and added that the applicant should be able to easily construct a two story building with either a 6:12 or 6:3 roof pitch. Chairperson Chisholm asked Mr. Kamp if he had some issues or questions for the Board. Mr. Kamp noted that he was asking for general input from the Board. He continued that the roof is intended to be metal rather than asphalt,however, cost will be a driving factor. Mr. Gleye noted that this project will be a handsome addition to S. 19th Avenue. He was concerned about the huge expanse of dry-vit in the steeple. Mr. Kamp explained the subtle use of a cross in the steeple. Discussion followed on parking calculations, adding greenspace to the parking lot using berms and/or parking "fingers". Chairperson Chisholm added that the canopy seems to be a change in character from the main church and the other wings. Mr. Kamp noted that they planned the flat roofed canopy to allow Design Review Board Minutes-April 22,1997 6 for the use of more glass above it. Mr. Willett noted that the perspective drawn makes the canopy dominate the front facade. Mr. Gleye noted that the canopy looks like one for a drive-up bank. Mr. Kamp noted that there is talk of shortening the canopy after moving some of the front parking. Planner Arkell asked if there were any comments on variation in siding. Chairperson Chisholm noted that certain buildings are exempt from the siding requirements, churches are among those. Planning Director Epple noted that could not only be over powering,but also top heavy. He noted that the biggest change that could be done would be a change in roofing materials. Mr. Noonan suggested they break up the long dry-vit stretches perhaps with a rhythm of window pattern on the second floor could be repeated in the dry-vit. Mr. Kamp noted that is a design issue and they are contemplating using the idea. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairperson Chisholm moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Katz seconded the motion, which carried 5 - 0. The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. CYfChisholm, Chairperson, Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-April 22,1997 7