The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMN-PDB-2011-11-29Approved at the January 24, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting 1 Special Planning and Development Board Meeting Minutes November 29, 2011 Board Members Attending: John Schroeder, Chair; Robert Boothroyd; Jane Marcham; Tessa Rudan Staff Attending: Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Development Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 1. Agenda Review There were no changes to the agenda. 2. Site Plan Review A. Collegetown Terrace Apartments, E. State Street, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Applicant for Owner, Collegetown Terrace Apartments, LLP (c/o John Novarr). Consideration of Approval of Building Details, and Consideration of Approval of Revised West Façade of Building 3.3). This agenda item concerned fulfillment of condition “v.” of the “Additional Conditions Identified During Site Plan Review” of the Final Site Plan Approval resolution for Phase 1 of the Collegetown Terrace Apartments project, which reads, “Submission to and approval by the Planning Board of final building details, materials and colors (including building material samples and ventilation grill placement),” and also fulfillment of the similar condition “v.” of the Final Site Plan Approval resolution for Phase 2, which reads, “Submission to and approval by the Planning Board of final building details, materials and colors (including building material samples).” All materials and colors had been approved at the September 27, 2011 Planning Board meeting, subject to an agreement that, as stated in the minutes of that meeting, “The applicant has agreed more work will be done to enrich the design of the west façade of Building 3.3, which was always intended to be an art work, for future review by the Planning Board.” Consideration of approval of building details had been deferred from the November 22, 2011 Planning Board meeting to today’s special meeting to allow, in the meantime, discussion with the applicant about certain drawings in the November 22, 2011 “Material Submitted to Satisfy: Collegetown Terrace Apartments: Architectural Details Needed” document which differed from the drawings that had received final site plan approval. Approved at the January 24, 2012 Planning and Development Board Meeting 2 Such discussion with the applicant had occurred earlier on November 29, at an afternoon meeting. The agreements from that discussion are shown outlined in green and explained in green type on the “Collegetown Terrace Apartments: Concerns About Architectural Details Drawings” document that is reproduced on Page 3 through Page 5 of these minutes. After Chair Schroeder explained this background, the Board approved the revised west façade of Building 3.3 and the building details shown in the document dated November 22, 2011 and titled “Material Submitted to Satisfy: Collegetown Terrace Apartments: Architectural Details Needed,” subject, however, to the clarifications and corrections outlined in green and described in green type on the “Collegetown Terrace Apartments: Concerns About Architectural Details Drawings” document that is reproduced on Page 3 through Page 5 of these minutes. 3. Planning Board Webinars Those Planning Board members present satisfied their 2011 training requirement by viewing and discussing the following two webinars: A. “Better Decision-Making for Planning Commissions” (APA National Conference, 2011). B. “How to Promote Green Building Design at the Municipal Level” (Utah APA Webcast Series, 2010). 4. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at about 8:00 p.m. The following three pages are an integral part of these minutes. 3 Collegetown Terrace Apartments: Concerns About Architectural Details Drawing s BUILDING 1 MAIN C ANOP Y Brackets appear to support the canopy in the elevation drawing (left), but no brackets are depicted in the architectural detail drawing (right). The brackets are an important design element intended to relate Building 1 to the architecture of the houses on the other side of South Quarr y Street. BUILDING 2.X SERIES BASIC ORNAMENTAL FACADE MOTIF On the elevations (two examples, left), the “capital” articulation at the top of the thin pilaster projects both forward and to the sides; on the architectural detail drawings (two examples, right), the “capital” articula- tion projects forward, but not always to the sides. The former is the desirable condition. On the elevations (two examples, left), the thin molding atop the sill feature projects both forward and to the sides; on the architectural detail drawings (two examples, right), this molding projects only forward. The former is more appropriate. On the elevations (left), the lower brackets are angled, while on the architectural detail drawings (above right), they are rigidly rectangular. An angled (or, alternatively, concave-curved) bracket profile seems most contextual and appropriate. BUILDING 2.X SERIES FRONT DOORS As depicted in the elevations, each of the Building 2.x series East State Street front doors — while having generic similarities — should have its own specific design individuality. vs. vs. vs. vs. APPROVED VERSION APPROVED VERSION APPROVED VERSION APPROVED VERSION APPLICANT AGREED, WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF SUPPLY AND COST, TO SEEK SUCH DESIGN INDIVIDUALITY AND — AS SHOWN OUTLINED IN GREEN AND DESCRIBED IN GREEN TYPE — AGREEMENTS MADE ON NOVEMBER 29, 2011 4 — 2 — BUILDING 2.4 PORCH COLUMNS BUILDING 2.4 PORCH MASONRY Throughout the site plan review process, the stone at the base of Building 1 and the Building 2.x series (as opposed to landscape site walls) has been consistently described and labeled as Llenroc, which connotes a particular stone coloration and masonry pattern. See two sample drawings below, the second from the slides presented to the Planning Board showing the intend- ed building materials and colors. However, in the architectural detail draw- ings, the porch at the base of Building 2.4 is described as being clad in bluestone. Is this (I hope) an error? BUILDING 3.3 WEST ELEVATION The redesign of this elevation is excellent — much better than the version shown with the materials and col- ors drawings in September, and also better than the version originally given site plan review approval. BUILDING 4.1 PORCH DESIGN DETAIL This drawing looks great. Just to confirm: The piers on this porch are tapered (thinner at the top), correct? BUILDING 4.2 AND 4.3 PORCH COLUMNS Again, the elevations (left) show columns with taller, more detailed capitals and shallower bases, whereas the architectural details drawings (right) show columns with interchangeable (or ver y similar) capitals and bases. Also, the elevations show thinner columns on Building 4.2, and wider columns on Building 4.3. The porch columns on the elevation (left) show a clear hierarchical distinc- tion between the column capitals and bases, with the former being taller and more detailed than the latter, consistent with traditional usage and with the context of similar porches on East Hill. However, on the archi- tectural detail drawing, the columns and bases have become inter- changeable (each being the same component in reverse), thereby weak- ening the contextuality of the design. vs. vs. 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 THE STONE COLORATION AND MASONRY PATTERN WILL, INDEED, BE LLENROC, ESSENTIALLY AS DEPICTED ABOVE APPLICANT AGREED, WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF AVAILABLE SUPPLY OPTIONS, TO SEEK COLUMNS THAT ARE MORE CONSISTENT IN THEIR DETAILS WITH THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS ON THE LEFT APPROVED DETAIL FOR BUILDING 2.4 PAIRED PORCH COLUMNS 5 — 3 — BUILDING 4.X BRICK WINDOW DETAIL The axonometric of the window set within a brick wall, showing the window being inset by the thickness of the brick veneer, is appropriate and attractive. However, the “Brick Header Soldier Course” detail seems most appropriate for Building 4.2 (where there is plenty of visual space for this detail above the windows in the brick portion of the front facade) — and less appropriate for Building 4.1, where the tops of the windows within the brick areas of the front facade are located quite close to other design elements. Use of soldier courses above windows on Building 4.2 (but not on Building 4.1) could be one more characteristic distinguishing the designs of these buildings, along with brick color and other characteristics. BUILDING 4.X SERIES DOORS AND LIGHTING FIXTURES Per the elevations, each front entr y door to the Building 4.x series houses along East State Street should have its own unique design. Likewise with lighting fixtures, where they appear. — prepared by John Schroeder, November 29, 2011 Throughout this document, the “elevations” refer to the colored elevation set distributed in September, 2011, while the “architectural details drawings” refers to a booklet dated November 22, 2011 showing “Material submitted to satisf y: Collegetown Terrace Apartments: Architectural Details Needed.” 4.1 4.2 APPLICANT AGREED, WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF SUPPLY AND COST, TO SEEK SUCH DESIGN INDIVIDUALITY THE BRICK WINDOW DETAILS FOR BOTH BUILDINGS WILL BE AS SHOWN IN THE NOVEMBER 22, 2011 BOOKLET REFERENCED IN THE FINAL PARAGRAPH BELOW