MINUTES
for the Regular Meeting of the DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE
OF MEETING:
TIME
OF MEETING:
PLACE
OF MEETING:
201
The
meeting was called to order at
Commissioners
Present: Fortier, LeDoux, Leys
Commissioners
Absent: Kagan, Merriss, Stanley
Staff
Present: Woltering,
Hirsch, Brisbine
III. CHANGES TO
AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
IV. APPROVAL OF
MINUTES
A. For the Regular Meeting on
Continued. No
Quorum.
A. Request for Preliminary
Design Review approval to allow construction of a two-story 6,140 square foot
industrial building on a .38 acre site located at
PA# 03/03 Applicant: Trueleaf Technologies/Key Architecture
AP# 144-010-021
Consultant
Planner Hirsch presented the staff report.
He reviewed options to address staff’s concerns about the proposed width
of the perimeter landscape strip in the parking lot.
In
response to an inquiry from Committee Member Leys, Planning Director Woltering
said that the minimum tree size for the landscape strip in question is
15-gallon and 5 feet tall. He also said
that the landscape architect will need to provide proof that the proposed
landscaping will meet the City’s requirement for 50% shading of the parking lot
in 10 years. He suggested that the
Design Review Committee may wish to include this requirement in the
conditions.
Also
in response to a question from the Committee, Planning Director Woltering said
that there is no specific Code requirement, but that it has been City policy to
require landscape strips that provide five feet of free and clear space.
Committee
Member LeDoux said that was not his recollection of recent approvals and that
there have been many variations approved in the industrial park.
Planning
Director Woltering acknowledged that other types of landscape strips have been
approved, but that the staff recommendation is for a five-foot unobstructed
landscape strip. Narrower strips limit
the type of plant materials, and landscaping can be damaged by overhanging
bumpers.
Dennis
Key, the project architect, represented the application.
Mr.
Key stated his understanding that the Code will allow parking in the rear
setback with Planning Commission approval.
He said that lots in the area have been developed with the parking lot
extending to the rear fence without any landscaping at all. He cited the difficulty in designing for a
corner lot.
Mr.
Key disputed condition no. 3 that requires metal grilles or trellises on the
south elevation. He said that the south
elevation is not visible from the street and abuts a box-like building on the
adjacent site.
Concerning
condition no. 8, Mr. Key said that all mechanical equipment will be
roof-mounted and screened from view.
In
response to an inquiry from Committee Member Leys, Mr. Key said that in
addition to the south elevation of the building not being visible, he opposes
the installation of trellises on the south elevation because the landscape
materials tend not to be maintained and don’t survive.
Committee
Member Fortier inititated discussion on the Code requirement for 50% shading of
the parking area in ten years.
Planning
Director Woltering discussed the purpose of the requirement and said that it up
to the landscape architect to prove to the City that the landscaping will
achieve the required shading. He said
that typically, landscape fingers are added to bring the trees out into the
parking area.
There
was a suggestion that because the number of parking spaces provided exceeds
what is required by one space, perhaps one parking space could be eliminated
and a landscape finger could be added.
Mr.
Key stated his preference for the landscape architect to submit proof that the
landscape plan will comply with the 50% shade requirement without the addition
of landscape fingers. The landscape
fingers, in his opinion, impede maneuverability of trucks on an industrial
property.
Committee
Member LeDoux stated his agreement that the burden of proof is on the applicant
and they must submit proof that their landscape plan will achieve the required
50% shading. He stated his recollection
that five-foot strips with overhangs have been allowed in many cases. In this case, the proposed landscape strip
abuts another 5-foot strip that when put together will give ten feet of
landscaping.
Comments:
Committee
Member LeDoux complimented the architecture and said that the design is
compatible with surrounding buildings.
Given the difficulty of the site, he said that the architect has done a
good job with the site plan. Regarding
the perimeter landscape strip on the east property line, he supported approving
the plan as shown, particularly since it abuts another landscape strip on the
adjacent property. He did not support
eliminating a parking space in favor of a landscape finger. He did not agree with the suggested
embellishments to the south elevation of the building because it will not be
visible except to people walking between the two buildings.
Committee
Member Leys said that architect did a good job with the building. He did not agree that with the recommended
trellis on the south side of the building, seeing it as unnecessary. He supported approval of the landscape strip
on the east property line as proposed with the requirement that the landscape
architect submit proof that they will meet the 50% shade requirement.
Committee
Member Fortier also agreed that the trellis on the south elevation would not be
necessary. He said that if sufficient
detail can be submitted at Final Design Review that the landscape plan as
proposed will meet the 50% shade requirement, then he would support is as
shown.
It was moved by Committee Member Leys to grant
Preliminary Design Review approval to allow construction of a
two-story 6,140 square foot industrial building on a .38 acre site located at
Yes: 3 (Fortier, LeDoux, Leys) Noes:
0 Absent: 3 (Kagan, Merriss, Stanley) Abstain:
0
Conditions
of Approval – PA
1.
DELETED: Standard parking stalls shall be dimensioned
9’x18’. Up to two feet of the required parking stall length may project into
the perimeter planting strip. Up to 30 percent of the overall required parking
may be designated as “compact parking” dimensioned 8’x16’. All landscaped
perimeter planters shall maintain at least five feet of “free and clear”
landscaping (i.e., if a standard parking stall projects two feet into the
perimeter planting strip, such planting strip shall be a minimum of seven feet
in width, inside dimension.) The site plan shall be modified to meet this
standard prior to Final Design Review.
2.
Parking within rear and side
setbacks shall be considered and reviewed by the Planning Commission.
3.
DELETED: Two metal grilles or trellises with climbing plants
or vines, consistent with the rest of the building, shall be installed on the
right side of the south elevation and shown on the design plans for Final
Design Review.
4.
The project parking data shown
on the site plan shall be corrected to indicate a total of 12 parking stalls,
including four compact stalls (not three).
5.
The main level floor plan shall
be corrected to show two “man-doors” on the west elevation in place of the
roll-up door that is indicated.
6.
Site details shall be provided
for Final Design Review, including such items as fencing, lighting, benches and
bike racks. All details including materials and colors, awnings, vents, window
materials shall be called out in detail on the building elevations for Final
Design Review. A color rendering and materials board shall be submitted for
Final Design Review.
7.
The color of metal siding
and/or roofing shall be a non-glare shade.
8.
The locations of all mechanical
equipment, including air conditioning and heating units, shall be shown on the
design plans for Final Design Review. All such equipment shall be located
outside of all setbacks and adequately screened from view from the public
right-of-way.
9.
A preliminary grading and
drainage plan shall be submitted for Staff review and approval prior to
issuance of building permits.
10. Detailed
exterior lighting plans shall be submitted for Staff review and approval prior
to issuance of building permits, including illumination that highlights entry
points and parking lot areas. Parking lot light standards shall be designed and
constructed attractively and similar to such improvements elsewhere in the
industrial park. Applicant shall provide lighting-related information for
building and parking lot on exterior lighting plans.
11.
A photometric study shall be
submitted for Staff review and approval prior to issuance of building permits
to ensure proper on-site lighting. New light sources shall be designed to
prevent glare and undesirable illumination to adjacent properties and streets.
12. This
project may require installation of street lighting, to be determined by the
City Engineer.
13. Detailed
irrigation plans shall be provided for Staff review and approval prior to
issuance of building permits. Site drainage shall be designed and constructed
to the approval of the Superintendent of Public Works, including the
installation of oil or sand trap interceptors and engraved metal storm drain
covers stamped “No Dumping-Drains to Creek.”
14. All
driveways shall be constructed to accepted commercial driveway apron standards.
15. Construction
shall proceed in accordance with Best Construction Practices for dust, noise
and traffic control.
16. All
exterior signage shall be required to be submitted for review and approval by
Planning Staff and a sign permit obtained prior to installation.
17. Landscaping
around windows and doors should not exceed three feet in height so as to
prevent concealment of individuals. (Police Dept.)
18. Prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the project landscape architect
shall be required to certify in writing that the landscape and irrigation are
installed according to approved design plans and satisfy the drought tolerant
landscape requirement of the City.
19. Design
Review approvals are valid for one year from the date of Planning Commission
approval.
20. ADDED. The applicant’s landscape architect shall
submit verification that the landscape plan meets the 50% shade requirement for
parking areas within ten years.
21. ADDED. Trees shall be included in the perimeter
landscape strip on the east property line located at points of intersection of
the parking spaces.
B. Discussion about color schemes for
downtown buildings.
Planning
Director Woltering reviewed the brief staff report on the topic and displayed
color photographs of a variety of color applications on downtown buildings,
some of which had generated a lot of discussion. He asked the Design Review Committee if they
would be interested in making a recommendation to the Planning Commission and
City Council regarding the establishment of an acceptable color palette for
buildings in the downtown area. He
envisioned a range of acceptable colors that would be acceptable for both new
construction and the re-painting of existing buildings.
Committee
Member LeDoux said that acceptable color is in the eye of the beholder, and
acceptable color choices change over the years.
He suggested that evaluating color choices on a case-by-case basis would
be the best way to go.
Committee
Member Leys hesitated to establish any color requirements. He agreed that reviewing each proposal on a
case by case basis is preferable and that an eclectic approach is alright.
Committee
Member LeDoux added that it would be difficult to monitor the re-painting of
existing buildings. Speaking as an
architect, he acknowledged that color goes hand in hand with the design.
Committee
Member Fortier noted that different colors go well with different types of
building materials and building styles.
He agreed that there should be an opportunity for a variety of colors.
Planning
Director Woltering suggested that in order to have the Planning Commission and
City Council made aware of color selections for new developments before they’re
built and in the process of being painted, a proposed color palette could be
made available at Preliminary Design
Review rather than at Final Design Review.
It
was the consensus of the Committee members present that this discussion should
be continued to allow the other Design Review Committee members an opportunity
to comment.
It
was moved by Committee Member LeDoux to continue discussion about color schemes
for downtown buildings. Second by
Committee Member Leys.
Yes: 3 (Fortier, LeDoux, Leys) Noes:
0 Absent: 3 (Kagan, Merriss, Stanley) Abstain:
0
In
response to an inquiry from Committee Member Fortier, Planning Director
Woltering
provided
an update on the Cottages and Marketplace projects.
There
were no reports from the Committee.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Acting Chairman Fortier adjourned the meeting at
Submitted by:
Kathleen Brisbine, Administrative Secretary