Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-1998 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD NOVEMBER 10, 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 Ed McCrone Mara-Gai Katz Debbie Arkell Don Stueck Henry Sorenson Therese Berger Ann Johnson Roger Cruwys Derek Strahn Vickie Greenwood Kim Walker John Sherman David Jarrett Walt Willett Andrew Epple Stephen Hundley Bill Hanson Carol Schott Gene Graf Mike Potter Eric Overlie ITEM 2. CONSENT ITEMS A. Gallatin Center PUD Final Plan#Z-981 I9 - (Arkell) West of North 19"'between Valley Center road and Baxter Lane To review revised graphic representation of unifying themes for PUD. B. Valley Commons PUD amendment for Hilton Garden Inn#Z-98180 - (Arkell) Lots 6, 7, and 8, Valley Commons Business Park A Conditional Use Permit Application to amend the Valley Commons to allow the development of a 5,000 sq. ft. restaurant and a 93 room hotel. Chairperson Walker asked if anyone had asked for either of the Consent Agenda items to be removed for discussion. Secretary Schott noted there were no requests for the removal of either item. Mr. McCrone moved, Mr. Willett seconded, to recommend approval of#Z-98119 and#Z- 98180 as per the conditions of Staff. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 3. Greenwood Daycare CUP/DEV#Z-98175 - (Berger) 501 South Third Avenue - A Conditional Use Permit Application with Deviations for a day care center for 28 children. Vickie Greenwood joined the DRB. Planner Therese Berger distributed and reviewed the comments from the City Engineering Department (DRC), then reviewed those of the Historic Preservation Officer. Historic Preservation Officer Derek Strahn further explained his comments. Discussion followed on the parking scenarios presented by the applicant. Chairperson Walker asked for clarification as to why the petitions are all the same. Planner Design Review Board Minutes - November 10, 1998 1 Berger noted three petitions have been circulated in the neighborhood and explained the contents of each. Ms. Greenwood noted that most of the neighbors are in favor of the daycare now that she has offered to sign a deed restriction that the day care cannot continue if she sells the property. Mr. McCrone asked Staff if a deed restriction was necessary with a CUP application. Planning Director Andrew Epple noted that a CUP generally runs with the land,therefore, it would be difficult for Staff to condition that it not run with the land. He noted the neighbors appear to be in favor of the CUP since if said deed restriction is in place. Mr. Hanson asked how the parking was calculated. Ms. Greenwood responded the sq. footage that is usable is a total of 731 sq. ft. in the main building and 647 sq. ft. in the second building. Mr. Hanson noted that sq. footage requires 7 parking spaces and Planning Director Epple noted the 2 spaces for the living quarters need to be added to the 7. Chairperson Walker noted that a COA hadn't been received for the storage shed, therefore, it will be included in this proposal. Mr. Hanson noted that Staff has stated they prefer to have as little backing into the public right- of-way as possible. Mr. Cruwys summarized that the DRB is now looking at the original proposal. Planning Director Epple noted that if the State and Ms. Greenwood can provide the Planning Office with the drawings to show the square footage of each building, the Planning Office will consider it. Chairperson Walker noted that the DRB needs to either support the deviations as proposed or recommend an alternative. She asked how wide the residential spaces are and if they can get another parking space. Mr. Cruwys noted the area isn't wide enough for another space. The Planning Director noted that the DRB has another alternative, they can recommend denial of the proposal. Chairperson Walker summarized the options and how the use actually fits in the neighborhood. Mr. Hanson noted he has visited the site and found that the biggest point is that this is an on- going use which has been going on for a number of years without a Conditional Use Permit. He feels there isn't a significant issue with the use. He discussed the contents and meaning of the petitions. He noted he is in favor of the use with the conditions recommended by staff. He would not like to force the additional parking. Mr. Sorenson noted he wasn't here last time, so would offer no comment. Mr. Willett noted that the deviation for parking is less than originally proposed and with the amount of parking available on the street, it isn't as much of an issue. He asked if the number of children can be limited. Planner Berger noted the application is limited to 28 children. She noted that for an increase in children, Ms. Greenwood would have to go through another CUP. Mr. Willett noted he is in support of the project with Staff conditions. Mr. Cruwys concurred with Mr. Willett. He reiterated that the closer the applicant can come to the required parking spaces, the more favorable the application is, with Staff conditions. Design Review Board Minutes - November 10, 1998 2 Mr. McCrone noted he was in favor of the original proposal and concurs with Mr. Hanson on the use. He indicated the City needs to be flexible with some restrictions, however,he concurs with the HPO on the preserving of the existing vegetation. Chairperson Walker asked the Board to address the storage shed. Mr. Willett asked about the building code issues with the 6 foot separation from another structure. Planner Berger noted the structure can be moved 2'6"to meet the 6' separation. Planning Director Epple noted if the structure stays where it is located, it would require a deviation from the Zone Code. Mr. Willett noted he would rather see it stay where it is, as it is behind a hedge according to Mr. Cruwys. Mr. Hanson noted the shed is totally hidden by the hedge and moving it won't change the site. Mr. Cruwys and Mr. McCrone concurred. Chairperson Walker summarized that the applicant is eliminating and revising deviations. She noted she is in favor of the application due to the deed restriction. She asked about the enforcement on a deed restriction. Planning Director Epple noted the Planning Office will talk to the City Attorney about it. Chairperson Walker noted she wants confirmation that the use will stop as soon as the property is sold. Ms. Greenwood noted her attorney suggested it be done on the deed so it would show up on the title report. MOTION: Chairperson Walker moved to approve the application with Staff conditions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, eliminating of 2, with a recommendation to the City Commission to approve deviations 1-8, and with the additional suggestion that the shed be left where it is. Mr. McCrone seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. B. Reynolds CUP/COA/ADU#Z-98171 - (Berger) 901 South Willson Avenue - A Conditional Use Permit Application to convert the second story of the barn/garage to an accessory dwelling unit. Eric Oberly joined the DRB. Historic Preservation Officer/Planner Derek Strahn presented the application, noting it is very similar to an application approved this spring at 120 East Cleveland. He explained the deviations requested,noting staff is in support of the deviations. He noted the conditions that do not permit the renting of both units and that the ADU unit be occupied no more than three months in any year. He reviewed the remainder of the recommended conditions. Chairperson Walker asked the representative how the applicants feel about the conditions. Mr. Oberly noted the applicant would rather have aluminum windows. Planner Strahn noted Staff would rather see wood windows. Mr. Willett asked if the owners could occupy the main house year around and rent out the ADU for three months. Planner Strahn affirmed that was possible. Mr. Willett asked how enforceable the three month use is. He noted that if it is only appropriate for three months use,then it Design Review Board Minutes - November 10, 1998 3 shouldn't be allowed. Planner Strahn noted that the Water/Superintendent has recommended that the ADU not be occupied full time due to sewer line restrictions. Mr. Oberly noted that the Reynolds intend to connect a line to the main sewer when the 7 year moratorium for street cuts is up. Planner Strahn noted the condition reads that only the City Commission can amend the condition. Chairperson Walker noted an addition is needed to the condition to allow the connection at the end of 7 years. Mr. Sorenson asked about the fire rating for the structure. Planner Strahn explained that the required fire rating materials would be installed around the openings in the walls, according to the Chief Building Official. He noted that flexibility is allowed in historic buildings. He noted it would affect the interior lighting on the west side if the windows were covered. Mr. Sorenson asked about the deviation for the parking space. Mr. Oberly noted that there is lots of parking on the street and rarely more than one car parked on the street. Planner Strahn noted that with the restricted occupancy to three months, the parking is not as much of an issue. Mr. Sorenson noted if the use of the ADU is to become permanent, then the additional parking space would be required. Discussion followed on the possible location of the additional parking space. Mr. Hanson asked to what extent the exterior of the carriage house will be changed. He asked if a porch will be added. Mr. Oberly explained the changes to be made. Discussion followed on the removal of the shed from the carriage house. Mr. Hanson suggested removing the shed prior to the addition of the new porch. He commented on the type of the windows proposed. Mr. Oberly explained the aluminum clad, wood windows he has proposed. Mr. Hanson noted he would be in support of the aluminum-clad, wood windows. Discussion followed on the fire rated wall. Mr. Hanson noted he is in support of the project with the existing shed removed. Ed concurred with the removal of the shed on the south elevation. He noted he is in agreement with Staff s recommended conditions. He supports the design. He noted the parking isn't an issue for him. He would suggest looking for wood windows. He is in support of the aluminum clad windows. Mr. Cruwys noted he is in agreement with comments thus far. Mr. Willett clarified how much of the aluminum will be visible. Planner Strahn noted that he could live with that. Mr. Sorenson asked Planner Strahn about the removal of the shed. Planner Strahn noted he would rather see it remain and be preserved. Mr. Sorenson noted he is in favor of Staff conditions. MOTION: Chairperson Walker moved to approve the application with a modification to condition 2.A.2 to allow the connecting of the sewer in 5 years and the requirement for three months occupancy per year shall be waived after connection to the main sewer lines. Mr. Cruwys seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. Design Review Board Minutes - November 10, 1998 4 C. Story Exxon Distributing MiSP/COA#Z-98166 - (Sherman) 1211 East Main Street - A Minor Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the addition of a fuel island, the replacement of a canopy over the existing fuel island, additional parking spaces, landscaping and a new access. Lowell Springer and Roger Berna joined the DRB. Urban Designer/Planner John Sherman presented the application, noting no deviations are requested, and no public comment has been received. He reviewed the conditions and recommendations and the conditions added by the DRC. Chairperson Walker asked Planner Sherman to describe the two signs in the proposal. He noted that both signs were included in the variance which was denied last week by City Commission. Chairperson Walker summarized the missing items in the proposal 1) there isn't enough parking, 2) the signs as proposed are not allowed, and 3)there are no suggestions for mechanical screening. Mr. Springer noted the easements do exist as handwritten documents, have been rewritten, and will be filed with the County Clerk&Recorder. Mr. Sorenson commented on Guideline 2A and recommended a sidewalk along the north parking area to connect to the building. Planner Sherman noted a sidewalk in that area would be difficult due to the slope on the north side of the parking lot. Mr. Hanson asked about the parking calculations for the store and how much excess is shown. Planner Sherman noted there are 5 extra spaces. Mr. Cruwys asked about the extent of the landscaping. Planner Sherman noted it was difficult to determine as the accesses are being relocated. He noted that the area is okay, but more planting materials will be required. Mr. Willett noted that even though the canopy is much larger that the existing one, he sees no problem with it due to the size of the station. Mr. Sorenson is in agreement with Staffs recommendation. He asked Mr. Springer if screening to the north would be a problem. Mr. Springer explained the screening he envisions. Mr. Hanson asked if the screening would be a parapet or set back from the edge. Mr. Springer noted it will be a combination of both. He noted they have no problem with the conditions. Mr. Cruwys suggested using a short vegetative cover rather than washed gravel. Mr. Springer noted that if there is a problem with spills, washing them off into grass kills it. Mr. Cruwys suggested clustering the plant materials. He noted the sidewalk from the new parking area is not Design Review Board Minutes - November 10, 1998 5 needed as pedestrians will walk in the parking stalls and driveways. Chairperson Walker noted she has a problem because the application is lacking several items. She suggested continuing the project until all materials are submitted for DRB review. Mr. Springer noted that the missing parts are well defined by Code. Chairperson Walker noted the DRB still needs to see all of the parts. Mr. Sorenson concurred with Chairperson Walker. Mr. Springer noted the only difference would be the screening. Chairperson Walker noted the plans are missing screening, signage, and landscaping. Mr. Cruwys disagreed, noting the screening and landscaping are included, though rather skimpy. Mr. Hanson asked Mr. Springer about the access of semi trucks to the diesel pumps. Mr. Springer noted they could access the pumps from either direction. Mr. Hanson noted that moving the access to the east would make it better. Mr. Springer noted that would put the access too close to an existing access on the next property. Discussion continued on the accesses. Mr. McCrone clarified the missing items on the plans are the landscaping, lighting, screening, and signage is what Chairperson Walker wants to see. Chairperson Walker noted she wants a complete submittal. Mr. Springer noted that they were just responding to the DRB's suggestions at the informal review. MOTION: Chairperson Walker moved, Mr. McCrone seconded, to continue the project to allow the submittal of landscaping, screening, signage, and lighting. Mr. Willett disagreed as the only change will be meeting the number of trees required, which the Planning Dept. will oversee. He noted the DRB has almost never seen the lighting fixtures. He feels that considering the project, he feels there is enough here to act upon. Mr. McCrone noted it is important that the lighting doesn't keep the neighbors awake. Planner Sherman asked if the lenses over the proposed lights are flush with the fixtures. Mr. Springer noted they are flush. Chairperson Walker noted she is concerned with the lighting in the parking lot. Mr. Hanson noted that it is not just this application that doesn't have enough information submitted. For him, as long as the owner is willing to live up to the conditions of Staff, he is in support of the proposal. Mr. Cruwys concurred with Mr. Hanson. He places more faith in Staff to see that the conditions are fulfilled. Mr. Sorenson noted he concurs with Chairperson Walker. However in this particular case, the main things he sees are the circulation paths and the landscaping. The motion failed 5-1, with Chairperson Walker voting for the motion, and Mr. McCrone, Mr. Sorenson, Mr. Cruwys, Mr. Design Review Board Minutes - November 10, 1998 6 Willett, and Mr. Hanson voting against it. MOTION: Mr. Sorenson moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to conditionally approve the application, with an addition to the end of condition 3, "... with materials and color to match the existing canopy", and Staff conditions. The motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Sorenson, Mr. Hanson, Mr. Cruwys, Mr. Willett, and Mr. McCrone voting in favor or the motion, and Chairperson Walker voting against it. ITEM, 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Kim Walker, Chairperson, Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes - November 10, 1998 7