Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-14-1998 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY,JULY 14, 1998 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Walker called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. She directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Kim Walker Mara Gai Katz John Sherman Tom Mannachreck Ed McCrone Henry Sorenson Dave Skelton Roger Smith Bill Hanson Andrew Epple Lowell Springer Walt Willett Derek Strahn Roger Cruwys Carol Schott ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 9 AND 23, 1998, MEETINGS Chairperson Walker asked for corrections or additions to either set of minutes. Mr. Cruwys asked for a correction on the June 9, 1998,minutes on page 5, sixth paragraph. MOTION: Mr. Willett moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as amended for June 9t1i and as submitted for June 23rd. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. CONTINUED PROJECT REVIEW Keller Supply Company MaSP/COA#Z-9888 - (Sherman) 75 Rawhide Ridge - A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a 19,770 sq. ft. office, showroom, warehouse structure in the North 19'h Entryway Overlay District. Lowell Springer and Tom Mannachreck joined the DRB. Planner John Sherman noted that though this is a continuation of a review begun at the last meeting,the material is an entirely new submittal. He noted the changes that were made in the new submittal, however, he noted new information on the signage was not included. Mr. McCrone noted that condition#3 deals with parking, which is a DRC issue. He asked if the color scheme is available. Mr. Springer noted the siding is beige with a brown roof, as indicated in the samples he provided. He noted that they tried to break up the simple box look by moving the offices to the lower level, adding the peaked roofs, and other details. Chairperson Walker asked why he brought in a totally new submittal. Mr. Springer noted he and Doug Morley of his office thought they were to come in with a totally new design. Discussion followed on the content of the last meeting. Design Review Bbard Minutes-July 14,1998 1 Discussion followed on the proposed fence, Chairperson Walker noted that one recommendation on the fencing, the consensus of the DRB, was totally against slats in a chain link fence. Mr. Springer noted he felt they were directed to provide an opaque fence. He suggested conditioning whatever type fence they want. Mr. Cruwys noted his has suggestion was for plantings to be placed in front of the fence. Discussion continued on the fencing issue. The concensus was that the DRB was in favor of chain link fencing with plantings in front of it. Chairperson Walker noted she wants to be sure that what the DRB has approved is actually built. Mr. Willett noted he doesn't like slats in the chain link fence, he'd rather see just the fence. He continued, he had wanted to see a differentiation between the office and warehouse spaces. He felt the new plans aren't as well done as the last ones. He noted he felt that Springer Group over- reacted to the comments of the last meeting. Mr. Springer noted he had Mr. Morley made the adjustments needed to please the DRB. Mr. Willett noted that the east elevation was a concern during the informal and the last meeting. He noted the entrance added to the east elevation does break up and improve that elevation. Chairperson Walker noted that the new submittal is a waste of DRB time. She felt that there has not been enough attention paid to the comments made by DRB. Mr. Springer noted they thought they had incorporated the comments. He noted he and the applicant are ready to take a"no"vote to the City Commission. Planner Sherman noted that the application goes to the Planning Board next. Mr. Willett noted that the biggest objection to this new plan is the almost residential application to the front elevation. He noted he would not object as much if the two types of construction could be tied together, they need to blend a little better. He asked if the Simmental Association had approved this new submittal. Mr. Springer noted both plans have been approved. Mr. Hanson asked if there would be any roof mounted equipment. Mr. Springer noted it is all mounted inside the building. He noted that the air conditioning units will be on the ground and screened with plantings. Mr. Hanson noted the strong mansard roof presented in an earlier rendition had too much horizontalness. He noted the strong mansard roof went away when the taller elements were added. He noted that the east and north elevations were the main concerns of the DRB at the last meeting,however, the canopy added to the new plan does break up the long northern facade. He suggested making the entrance larger. Mr. Springer noted that they don't want to do much to the east facade as there will be a building next to it some day. Mr. Hanson noted he is suggesting some detailing be added. He also noted that the effis doesn't have detailing and could have the desired effect of banding and/or striping if it were detailed. Mr. Hanson asked if the applicant was intending to add any horizontal detailing and what is the dimension between the fence and the rear of the building. Mr. Springer noted it is about 3 feet, which would allow room for low junipers and other plantings. Mr. Hanson noted he has never seen slatted fence be successful. Mr. McCrone asked Mr. Springer if he had any comments to the conditions listed by Staff. Mr. Design Review Board Minutes-July 14,199E 2 Springer noted in answer to questions raised earlier, the area over the office will be container storage, however, he has no objections to any of the conditions. Mr. McCrone noted Mr. Springer had made an effort to accommodate the suggestion of breaking up the facades. Mr. McCrone asked if the height of the fence was for security reasons. He noted that he'd rather not see the slats installed. Mr. Springer noted the fence is for security and he doesn't like slatted fences either. Mr. McCrone asked for the color renderings of the siding. He noted he feels Mr. Springer has made a reasonable effort addressing the DRB concerns on the entryway. Mr. Cruwys noted he concurred with Mr. Willett in that if the two plans could be blended, it would have been better. He suggested wrapping the roof form around the east elevation. Mr. Springer noted they could take the shed roof around to that elevation and it would be functional. Mr. Cruwys suggested moving the parking back to give more landscaping area. Mr. Springer was agreeable. Mr. Cruwys asked that the landscaping continue around the fence. He noted that plain chain link fence would be better than one with slats. Chairperson Walker suggested using horizontal banding to break up the facades and no slats in the fencing. MOTION: Chairperson Walker moved to recommend approval of the revised application with two added conditions -#10 "Horizontal banding or the extension of the shed roof around to the east elevation shall be used to break up the long expanse" and#11 "An alternative to slat fencing shall be used, with fencing and continuous shrubbery recommended". Mr. McCrone seconded the motion. Mr. Hanson amended the eleventh condition to have continuous shrubbery of at least 5 gallon size with alternating coniferous and deciduous trees added and added condition#12 "The parking area shall be moved to allow a minimum planting area of 4 to 5 feet. The amendment was seconded by Mr. McCrone. The amendment and motion each carried by a 5-0 vote. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEWS A. Castlebar Apartments Concept PUD #Z-98105 - (Skelton) Oak Street and North 25" A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the construction of 12 6-apartment buildings in two phases. Lowell Springer and Tom Mannachreck joined the DRB. Planner Dave Skelton presented the project. Discussion followed on the plan on the table compared to what is in the packets,the square footage of the units, the number of units, the lack of garages, parking, and the 52% open space. Mr. Cruwys suggested ways to reorganize the plan to get the primary open space in the center of Phase 2. He also suggested facing the lengths of the structures in more of an east-west orientation to allow solar heating. Mr. Springer and Mr. Mannachreck were willing to take the ideas under consideration. Mr. Cruwys noted that he likes what Mr. Mannachreck as done with the architecture. Design Review Board Minutes-July 14,1998 3 Chairperson Walker concurred with Mr. Cruwys`s suggestions. She noted that the one suggestion which opens up a space in the middle of the structures allows a real usable area for families. Discussion followed on landscaping, B. Ranch and Home Expansion MaSP/COA#Z-98120 - (Skelton) 2275 North 71"Avenue - A Major Site Plan Application to allow an approximately 20,000 sq. ft. addition to the existing retail structure. (Inadvertently placed on the agenda. Will be reviewed at the next meeting.) ITEM 5. INFORMAL REVIEW Norwest Bank Re-siding Proposal 211 West Main Street Historic Preservation Officer/Planner Derek Strahn presented the application. He noted that typically this application would only be reviewed by the Administrative Design Review Staff. In this instance, however,he noted that staff is having problems supporting the changes as proposed. If the project is denied and then appealed, it would come before the DRB for a recommendation to the City Commission, before going to the City Commission for a final decision. Therefore, at the recommendation of the Planning Director, this project was brought informally before the DRB. Planner Strahn explained that the applicants are proposing to enclose the total exterior of the bank with metal. Staffs concern is that metal siding and roofing are out of character with the historic downtown area. Chairperson Walker asked how the siding would be attached. Mr. Willett noted that furring strips would probably be installed then the siding tacked over them. Planner Strahn noted that the contractor had stated that over a short period of time the bank is having to refinish the wood. A low maintenance product is,therefore,being proposed. Chairperson Walker noted the metal is inappropriate for the downtown area. She suggested looking for other ways to deal with the maintenance problem. Mr. Hanson noted the addition of the metal will totally change the form of the building. Planner Strahn asked if the DRB would support the Planing Office in denying this proposal. Mr. Hanson and Mr. Willett noted that maintenance is the only thing the bank is considering. Planner Strahn asked if the DRB could suggest other materials. Chairperson Walker asked if there is any way to seal the redwood, and if there is a way to define which elevations are affected by the weathering of the siding. Mr. Hanson made several suggestions. Mr. Willett noted that the verticality of the building should be kept. Design Review Board Knutes-July 14,1999 4 For the Good of the Order: Planning Director Andrew Epple noted that in last week's discussion of the Keller submittal, he came away with the impression that the DRB was very negative towards the submittal. He noted that neither Planner Sherman nor he had any contact with Springer Group except the next morning Mr. Springer came to see Mr. Epple and said he was going to put the biggest gable roof on it possible. Mr. Epple noted he asked him not to do that. Chairperson Walker noted that what was unacceptable was that the architect didn't address the issues and concerns raised during the informal review, nor did he address the comments from the last meeting for this meeting. Discussion followed on the last meeting. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There be' er business, the meeting was adjourned. Kim a er, airperson, Design 'ew Board Design Review Board Minutes-July 14,1998 5