Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDESIGN REVIEW MEETING #2 - 11 13 08 - 08-00295 - Hemming Properties - Phase 1A Bldg - Site Plan Design Review Committee Meeting – 08 00296 Foundation Only -Hemming Properties Phase 1A Building – Meeting #2- Addressing Building Design Concerns 11:00 am – November 13, 2008 Attendees: Design Review Committee members: Ted Hill, Winston Dyer, Thaine Robinson Applicants: Richie Webb, Reginald Richey, Chad Richards Staff: Gary Leikness, Elaine McFerrin The meeting was held so the applicants could present changes that have been made to the building due to unanticipated cost of constructing the building as originally proposed, and in order to improve it (i.e. different scale and different architectural elements). Concerns from the earlier Hemming Design Review meeting (July 16, 2008) were the long expanse of east and west walls and the glass front of the building, and the blank, tall eastern and western walls. Reginald Richey stated the height of the building has been changed from 52-feet to 42-feet. The building materials used would be the same. Distance of the building from the property line would also remain unchanged. There will be 6-foot pop-outs on the ground and upper levels to relieve the flatness and the ground floor expanse of glass. A colonnade will continue around the entire building.. The applicant wants the building to be pedestrian friendly. The building will be accented with Douglas Fir siding on the ends of the building. They want to be able to extend the building at the west side in the future. The property on the NE corner of S.2nd W. and W. 2nd S. will come down before building begins. This may create a situation where the western wall of the new building is a blank wall for years to come, while the intent is to build another building or an addition to the one being constructed. In the event the building is torn down and a new one is not constructed to screen the wall currently under construction, then there needs to be a time limit set for the blank wall to be visible from public rights-of-way. Therefore, a development agreement with the City shall address this corner and any other concerns in the event that development is delayed. An appropriate time frame for development was agreed to be and shall be 3 (three) years. It was determined that the Design Review Committee’s concerns with the ends of the building and its frontage of glass have been satisfactorily addressed. The drawings that were presented at this meeting will be placed in the permit file.