Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-1998 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APRIL 28, 1998 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice-Chairperson Paul Gleye called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. He asked the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Roger Cruwys Kim Walker Debbie Arkell Jerry Locati Ed McCrone John Sherman Kyle Tage Paul Gleye Derek Strahn Rich Noonan Walt Willett Carol Schott Sallie Wright Mara-Gai Katz Andrew Epple Linda Bell Bill Hanson Henry Sorenson ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 14, 1998, MEETING Vice-Chairperson Gleye asked for corrections or additions. Mr. McCrone amended Page 6, 5th paragraph, then he moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEWS A. American Bank East MiSP/COA#Z-9843 - (Arkelo 501 East Main Street • A Minor Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the remodel of the former United Building Center structure, to include facade changes to create a 7,253 sq. ft. retail facility including 3 tenant spaces, a walk-in/drive-thru bank facility, related site improvements, and the removal of a lumber storage structure. Jerry Locati and Kyle Tage joined the DRB. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell presented the application. She noted the west elevation would become the main entrance, then explained the rest of the modifications to the elevations. She reviewed the six conditions recommended by Staff and Design Review Staff. Vice-Chairperson Gleye asked if there are any changes in what is being presented today from what was presented in the Informal review. Mr. Locati noted there are no changes. Mr. McCrone asked about the use of brick masonry, as the rest of the structures in the Downtown Historic District are mostly brick or have brick facades. Design Review Board Minutes-April 28,1998 1 Mr. Willett asked for an explanation of the materials. Mr. Locati described the use of Dryvit and where brick might be used. He noted there isn't a whole lot of wall for the use of brick, however, he noted that Mr. Erickson has no problem with his firm looking into the use of brick. (Mr. Sorenson joined DRB.) Mr. Hanson asked if the recommended conditions are from the Design Review Staff and/or the Historic Preservation Officer. Planner Arkell noted that the comments are from the Design Review Staff who had imput from the Historic Preservation Officer. Mr. Willett noted that the columns are the only part of the structure where bricks could be used appropriately. Mr. Cruwys asked if the East Main Street facade could be off-set. Mr. Locati noted they could possibly pull the signage facade out about 2 feet towards Main. Mr. Cruwys noted that would give the sign a good shadow line. Mr. Willett noted the structure doesn't present itself to Main Street. He felt there needs to be a presence to Main Street. Mr. Locati noted they are trying to create a city scape on the drive through. Mr. Hanson would like condition #5 to be re-written as "the applicant shall consider..." He doesn't feel that the building would become any stronger if brick were used. He feels it is an ambitious project and commended Mr. Locati for his efforts. Mr. Cruwys concurred with Mr. Hanson on the dictating of materials and the change in wording in condition#5. The orientation is appropriate to the site. On the landscaping, there don't seem to be any coniferous trees. He suggested using them on the west elevation. Planner Arkell noted the location of the sewer service and the need perhaps for caution for landscaping with any plants that are deep-rooted. Mr. McCrone concurred with Mr. Hanson and Mr. Cruwys on condition#5. He noted the tying of the two banks together would be difficult if the brick were required on the east bank. He asked about the access from the alley from a safety standpoint. Mr. Sorenson asked if the sloped roof will be visible on the east elevation. Mr. Locati noted he wasn't sure,however, they plan to make it as open and airy as possible. Mr. Sorenson noted it would be very handsome as a brick building. He feels that the condition should be a consideration for the applicant. Discussion followed on the meaning of condition#6. Mr. Locati noted he interpreted it to mean the facade should be pulled out. Mr. Sorenson feels it is a strong design. Ms. Katz noted the brick would reinforce the integrity of the historic district. She asked Historic Preservation Officer Strahn to explain how the brick would create an integral building. Mr. Strahn noted this is near the Main Street Historic District, which is generally constructed in brick. He feels there should be some reference to provide a positive, visual relationship between this building and the Historic District. He noted that Staff is not asking for all brick to be used, but for it to become an integral part of the structure. Ms. Katz noted she would like the condition to Design Review Board Minutes-April 28,1998 2 remain as written. Mr Strahn noted the brick would help to relate this building to its surroundings. Vice-Chairperson Gleye asked Planner Arkell if there was a problem with the color palette. She noted that Senior Planner Skelton had done the review and she couldn't speak to it. Vice- Chairperson Gleye noted he couldn't see any advantage to using brick in this instance. He isn't sure brick would improve the architectural quality. He noted the design is atypical to what is usually done on Main Street. Mr. Hanson moved to accept the recommendation of staff with the modification to condition#5 to read"the applicant shall consider the use of brick masonry as an integral building material." Mr. Cruwys seconded the motion. Mr. Sorenson noted that if the brick is used, it should be the primary material, as a brick trim wouldn't be appropriate. Mr. McCrone asked if the last sentence should be removed in#5. The condition was modified to be sentence 1 with all of the condition omitted except for that stated in the motion. Voting yes by roll call vote were: Mr. Willett, Mr. Hanson, Mr. Cruwys, Mr. McCrone, and Mr. Sorenson. Ms. Katz abstained, stating that she had been absent when the application was discussed at the first meeting. The motion carried 5-0. B. American Bank West MiSP/COA#Z-9845 - (Sherman) 1632 West Main Street • A Minor Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow a 1633 sq. ft. addition, facade remodel, the realignment of entrance driveways, and the redesign of the parking areas and landscape features. Jerry Locati and Kyle Tage joined the DRB. Urban Designer/Planner John Sherman presented the application. He noted staff recommends approval of the project with conditions, then reviewed the recommended conditions. He noted a letter from the adjacent property owners at Beaver Pond Plaza had been received as public comment. He read the letter into the record. He reviewed the comments for DRB review. Discussion followed on the canopy extending into the setback. Planner Sherman noted he has suggested raising the facade to emphasize the entrance and possibly hide the roof mechanical equipment. Mr. McCrone asked about condition#1. Planner Sherman noted he has asked for a revised landscaping plan that shows the coniferous trees the owner referred to last time. Mr. Cruwys asked if Mr. Locati has discussed the transplanting of the willows with Cashman's Nursery. Mr. Locati noted he hasn't, however, Mr. Erickson has. Mr. Cruwys noted he hates to see the willows go. If they have a lot of life left in them, they do add a nice foil to the parking lot. Mr. Locati noted the trees are right in the middle of the driving aisle and circulation area and the willows are a problem with the landscaping in that area. Mr. Cruwys asked if the City would concede to allowing the trees to be removed and not transplanted. Planner Sherman noted he Design Re�riew Board Minutes-April 28,1998 3 would have to reconsider it. Mr. Locati noted that the improvements and addition of many trees far outweighs the loss of those trees. Mr. Cruwys noted if they were replaced with some substantial trees, it would alleviate the problem. Mr. Locati noted that several of the conifers were 20 footers. Mr. Cruwys noted that would compensate for the willows. Mr. Hanson asked Planner Sherman to explain his recommendation that the applicant introduce indigenous building materials into this design. Planner Sherman explained the existing use of moss rock as an indigenous material, the orientation of the building to Main Street, and the difference in the facades of the two banks. Vice-Chairperson Gleye asked the applicant to respond to the conditions and the recommendation. Mr. Locati noted neither he nor the client have problems with the conditions, however, for condition#3, they plan to stay with the same design,just pull it back to within the setbacks. It will cause the elimination of one column. Mr. Locati continued, they have met with MDOT and there are no problems there. He commented on the indigenous materials and the tepee structure having skewed walls, noting the materials and structures would be very difficult to match and they are of the 70's look. He feels that the use of chocolate mortar and the moss rock is a very bad choice of materials to combine. Vice-Chairperson Gleye asked if the fence proposed is allowed. Planner Sherman noted it is, however, the condition on the lighting is a result of the light fixtures located on the fence. He noted there are actually two fences and indicated them on the site plan. Mr. Locati noted that Mr. Erickson had been in contact with one of the owners of Beaver Pond and they have worked out some solutions. Mr. Sorenson noted that Planner Sherman is suggesting raising the Marquee. He disagrees with raising it as it is not over the entrance. He does agree with the placement of a marquee over the entrance. He noted it is too regrettable that the willow trees will be destroyed, but he doesn't any alternative. He commended the new presentation of the structure. Mr. McCrone commended them on the landscaping. He had nothing to add to the conditions. Mr. Cruwys concurred with the applicant about introducing the indigenous materials. He noted the fencing correlates well with the architecture of the building. He noted it is one thing to consider matching the neighborhood, however, neighborhoods change, materials change, and architecture changes. Mr. Hanson concurred with Mr. Cruwys, noting indigenous materials belong on a bank. He feels it will still be an anchor for this part of town. He is concerned that the curved entry canopy conflicts with the rest of the building. He would like to see it more integral to the building. Mr. Locati noted it is an angled space and difficult to design. He feels with the layering and colorings there will be adequate relief. Mr. Hanson suggested beefing up the columns. Design Review Board Minutes-April 28,1998 4 Mr. Hanson noted he had an issue with condition#2. He finds that the lighting suggested is not for illumination, but an architectural feature. He feels that standard conditions like#2 limit the flexibility of the lighting. He would like to see the condition reworded. He feels the proposed lighting would just make the post-top glow. Discussion continued on condition#2. He suggested modifying the condition to have them reviewed as an accent feature. Planning Director Andrew Epple further explained that the Design Objectives Plan doesn't differentiate between parking lot lighting and lighting as an architectural feature. He noted he would need to check with the City Attorney to be sure the lighting as an architectural feature did not to violate the code. Vice-Chairperson Gleye concurred with Mr. Hanson on the lighting. He would like to avoid having the mechanical equipment visible on the rooftop. Mr. Locati explained that the addition is only one story, while the rest of the building is 1 1/2 stories, and the facade is bumped up about 6 feet. MOTION: Mr. Cruwys moved to approved the application with a modification to condition#2 as suggested by Planning Director Epple. Mr. McCrone seconded the motion. Ms. Katz asked if condition#3 stands as is. Discussion followed, with a consensus that it is the same design just pulled back 3 feet. During the roll call vote, those voting yes were Ms. Katz, Mr. Sorenson„ Mr. McCrone, Mr. Cruwys, Mr. Hanson, Mr. Willett, and Vice-Chairperson Gleye. Those voting nay: none. C. Minton Accessory Dwelling Unit CUP/COA/Dev#Z-9842 - (Strahn) 120 West Cleveland Street • Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness Applications with Deviations to allow the removal of the existing garage, the construction of a new garage with an upper story accessory dwelling unit, and the construction of a mud room with an elevator on the rear of the existing home. Linda Bell joined the DRB. Historic Preservation Planner Derek Strahn presented the application. He reviewed the 3 proposed deviations. (Staff report on file in the Planning Office.). He reviewed the Historic Preservation Officer's comments, then noted that Staff is recommending the skylights be eliminated. He reviewed the recommended conditions. Vice-Chairperson Gleye asked if condition#IA means that the principal residence cannot be rented. Planner Strahn concurred. Mr. Hanson asked about the use of the Secretary of Interior's Standards to review this application. Mr. Cruwys asked if the alleyway is actively used. Planner Strahn noted it is and explained how the alley is used by the neighbor. Mr. McCrone noted the alley goes all the way through and other neighbors' garages do access the alley. He noted there is no curb cut and a very extensive Design Re-.riew Board;Minutes-April 28,1998 5 hedge along the alley. Mr. Cruwys asked Ms. Bell about the narrowness of the curb cut. Ms. Bell noted it was to save the trees on either side. Mr. Cruwys asked if there would be a problem accessing the garage or parking space. Ms. Bell explained how the access and parking would be used. Planner Strahn noted the curb cut would also help snow removal. Mr. McCrone asked for the location of the neighboring garage. He was asking in reference to how the skylights would affect the neighbor's privacy. Ms. Bell noted that the owner probably will have no problem dropping the skylights from the design. Planner Strahn noted there is an abundance of lighting provided by the windows. Mr. McCrone noted it is a great plan. Mr. Sorenson noted Ms. Bell has done a great job marrying the two buildings. He is in favor of the skylights. Since it is a new building, he isn't sure it is detracting to the historic district. He feels they would save on electricity in the daytime, and if they were the same color as the roof, they would be very unobtrusive. Planner Strahn noted that there is more concern with setting a precedent in a historic district. Also, the applicant has expressed an interest in adding a dormer to achieve the same lighting effect. Ms. Katz concurred with Planner Strahn that the skylights not be added. It is important to maintain the characteristics of the historic district. Mr. Willett asked if there is the hardship requirement for the encroaching into the setback can be met. Ms. Bell noted they are trying to preserve the backyard, keep the structure from being splashed by the garbage trucks as they drive through the alley, and the roof has overhangs. Planner Strahn noted this is the best example of a reason to allow a deviation-to replicate the pattern of the historic district. Planning Director Epple noted that deviations don't have to be based on hardship, the criteria includes, "does the project make an overall contribution to the neighborhood". Mr. Willett asked about the configuration of the dormers. Ms. Bell noted one or two would be added. Mr. Willett noted that three dormers would be too many. Mr. Hanson commended the drawings. He would like to see some other way of handling roof lighting in the skylights, noting it is a fun project. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved to conditionally approve the application with an amendment to condition#2 stating that dormers would be an acceptable alternative to the skylights. Ms. Katz seconded the motion. It was noted that to access the garage from Cleveland,the parking space would be blocked by a car parked in the driveway, therefore,the trees may need to be removed to be safe. The motion carried 7-0, with those voting yes: Mr. McCrone, Mr. Sorenson, Ms. Katz, Mr. Willett, Mr. Hanson, Mr. Cruwys, and Vice-Chairperson Gleye. Those voting nay were: none. Design Review Board Minutes-April 28,1998 6 ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW Chamber of Commerce- (Skelton) Southeast corner of Baxter Lane and North 19`"Avenue • An Informal Review of the proposed Chamber of Commerce site. In Senior Planner Dave Skelton's absence, Historic Preservation Planner Derek Strahn presented the project. He noted that Planner Skelton had commented on the log entryway and whether it was appropriate. Planner Skelton had also recommended the use of masonry rather than Dryvit. Ms. Katz asked if the materials were inappropriate. Planner Strahn noted that Planner Skelton wanted comments on the use of log for the entry when they were not being used on other parts of the structure. Vice-Chairperson Gleye recommended the architecture on the roof be changed. He agreed with Planner Skelton that the use of logs on the entryway was inappropriate and noted the addition of the logs doesn't tie into the rest of the building. Mr. Hanson agreed the addition of the log is out of character and context. He called it a band-aid approach. Ms. Katz suggested that a stick frame with decorative trusses would fit better with the rest of the structure. Vice-Chairperson Gleye noted the entrance has a residential appearance. It should portray more of a commercial appearance. Ms. Katz noted the combination of Dryvit and color-lok siding with the logs is too much. She suggested using two materials. Mr. Sorenson noted that Dryvit at the lower level will be easily damaged. He suggested a more substantial masonry material be used. Because the roof is so dominant in the design, he also recommended mid to high range asphalt or wood shingles. Vice-Chairperson Gleye suggested the addition of a row of stone, or the use of some masonry material along the ground level. Discussion followed on the possible materials that could be used. A stone or stone-faced C.M.U. were mentioned as possibilities. Mr. McCrone noted the mass of the roof if shingled will be very noticeable. The applicants should be concerned about the color of them. Further discussion of the shingles followed. The DRB suggested that samples for all materials, especially the shingles,be submitted to the Planning Office for formal review. Vice-Chairperson Gleye noted the west elevation is very visible from North 19"Avenue and would be required for a formal review. Discussion on the north and west elevations being needed. Ms. Katz suggested adding glass on the east elevation. Mr. Cruwys noted that he liked the siting and solar orientation of the project. Design Review Board Llinutes-April 28,1998 7 Mr. McCrone moved, Mr. Hanson seconded,that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried 6-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. Design Review Board Minutes-April 28,1998 8