Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-1997 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECEMBER 9, 1997 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Kim Walker called the December 9, 1997,meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. She directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Ed McCrone Henry Sorenson Derek Strahn Bill Hanson Paul Gleye Dave Skelton Steve Quigley Mara-Gai Katz John Sherman Joe Frost Walt Willett Carol Schott Kim Walker Roger Cruwys ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 25, 1997,MEETING Mr. Cruwys made corrections. Chairperson Walker moved, Ms. Katz secondedlthat the minutes be approved as corrected. The motion carried 6-0 ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Graff Remodel COA#Z-97172 - (Strahn) 234 East Mendenhall Street - A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the removal of the existing second story rear deck, exterior stairs and entrance; the replacement of the existing second story entrance with a window; and the construction of a new second story entrance, exterior stairs and landing. Steve Quigley joined DRB. Historic Preservation Officer/Planner Derek Strahn presented the application. He noted there are two conditions in addition to the boiler plate conditions, which are conditions #1 and#2. (All staff reports are on file in the Planning Office.) He noted the applicant and owner are okay with those conditions. Planner Strahn continued, it is a very significant building,though not on the Historic Register. Chairperson Walker asked for questions of Planner Strahn or the applicant. Mr. Willett asked about the height of the window and whether it will accommodate a door. Mr. Quigley noted he plans to remove the wall section below the window to the floor to install the door. He noted the landing will be one step down from the door. Mr. Willett asked if that meets code. Planner Strahn noted the code issue would be a Building Division decision. Mr. Willett noted that the doorway will be wider than the existing window. Mr. Quigley noted it will be Design Review Board Minutes-December 9,1997 l about 6 inches wider than the window; but the window opening is wider than the window, so he will cut the opening about 2 inches wider. Discussion continued on the window/doorway. Mr. Willett noted the stairway needs to be more substantial. Planner Strahn noted that the existing stairway is not in the interest in safety. Joe Frost joined the DRB. Planner Strahn noted that one who enters/exits has to step over a window sill and down into the bedroom or outside. Mr. Quigley noted he has discussed the enclosing of the stairway with the owner, who is amenable. Mr. Sherman noted that the trash containers and yard and gardening tools could be stored in the stairway enclosure rather than in the driveway. He noted it also helps support the stair structure. Mr. Cruwys asked if the rails could come out of the storage area. Mr. Quigley noted they don't want to destroy the tree or block the window. Mr. Cruwys noted that stucco on the enclosure might be appropriate. Discussion ensued on matching the color of the new stucco compared to the existing color. Mr. Quigley noted they would enclose the portion beyond the window. Mr. McCrone concurred with Mr. Cruwys and Mr. Willett. He noted suggested saving the trees as part of a condition and painting the stairway not be part of a condition, due to dictating color. Ms. Katz concurred with Mr. Cruwys and Mr. Willett, and though she agrees with Mr. McCrone about not dictating color, the color should match what exists. Mr. Gleye noted he is comfortable with the conditions as they stand. Chairperson Walker asked if there should be more direction included in condition#1. Planner Strahn noted the applicant has some ideas. Mr. Quigley described some railing detailing that he had found. He anticipates using a scalloped fence type railing with the bottom and top railing having fittings for wooden fence boards to fill the spaces between the top and bottom. He considered a spindle type railing also. Mr.Willett disagreed with Mr. Cruwys on using a stucco finish on the enclosure. With the hand rails, suggested not using decorative railing,but use a heavier railing that is more in keeping with the simplicity of the existing structure. Chairperson Walker asked if the DRB wanted to specify that the stairway be enclosed as suggested by the applicant. Mr. Cruwys noted that the stucco finish may not be appropriate. He asked why the entrance is being moved. Mr. Quigley noted that the entrance is not very safe. Planner Strahn noted the entrance is through a bedroom window. Mr. Willett asked about the possible use of the space. Mr. Quigley noted that the Sierra Club may move into the space or some other commercial use. Chairperson Walker moved to approved the application with the staff s condition, adding to condition 1 that the stairway be enclosed and the details be worked out with Planning Staff. Mr. Willett seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. Design Review Board Minutes-December 9,1997 2 with Phases 1 and 5 now and ignore the land use patterns for the whole PUD. Chairperson Walker and Mr. Cruwys noted that they didn't start with a framework and build upon it. Planner Skelton noted that he'd like to proceed with the applications by working with the applicant. Chairperson Walker noted that the submittal is missing several pieces. Ms. Katz noted it is not cohesive. Mr. Cruwys concurred and noted that there needs to be something to tie it all together. Chairperson Walker noted that there needs to be a framework similar to what Nelson presented. Mr. Gleye concurred, then noted that this is project is too large for only one set of guidelines. Ms. Katz concurred with Mr. Gleye. She asked how the framework would work for so large an area. Discussion followed on the types of development that might occur across the street. Planner Skelton noted that a recommendation for denial may not be the way to handle the application. Yet he suspects that DRB is entertaining the thought of recommending denial as well as staff. He noted that DRB doesn't usually look at design and lot layout of subdivisions. Chairperson Walker noted that it is a complete submittal as far as a submittal is concerned. However, it is not complete as far as the items needed for DRB review. Mr. Hansen noted there are 2 questions -is the submittal complete and is the DRB comfortable with the materials presented. Chairperson Walker noted there isn't enough material for the DRB to respond. Mr. Hansen noted that the site plan looks like an as-built neighborhood. Mr. Cruwys noted that DRB tried to suggest the opening of spaces for asthetics. Mr. Hansen suggested to make the submittal complete,recommend to the architect that the design be changed also. Mr. Gleye noted that the understanding of what DRB said and what Mr. Springer understood appear to be two different things. Planner Skelton reiterated that this is an FYI item at this time. The formal review process hasn't started yet. The DRB options are to express their concerns and suggest to the applicant ways to improve the submittal. He noted that Planning staff has yet to determine if the application can move forward for review. Discussion of the options followed. Planner Skelton noted that the submittal doesn't meet the North 19th guidelines. Ms. Katz noted there isn't substantive information. Mr. Gleye noted there are two issues, the submittal is incomplete and it doesn't meet the intent and purpose of the North 19th giuidelines. He continued that he would not be prepared to recommend approval. Mr. McCrone noted that he doesn't have enough information to vote either way. Ms. Katz, Mr. Cruwys, the Chairperson, and Mr. Willett concurred with Mr. Gleye. Mr. Cruwys asked about phases 4 and 5,noting he would have an issue with the land use near the pond and the Visitors Center being located across North 19th, Planner Skelton noted that the land uses are not fully established. Design Review Board Minutes-December 9,1997 4 Planner Skelton noted he will express the DRB's concerns and the concerns of the staff to the applicant. If the applicant withdraws,he will send a memo to the D.R.B. along with a copy of the applicant's letter. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Walker noted that she will have the By-Laws compilation for the next meeting and asked the secretary to include it on the January 13th agenda. There being no further business,the Chair adjourned the meeting. Kim JW�ker, Chairperson, Design Review Board Design Review Boatel Minutes-December 9,1997 5