Loading...
2019-40_Rock-Armor_CZC-DR-Response lett_09..22.20201 DATE: Tuesday September 22, 2020 TO: Community Development; Planning Department 33 E Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642 ATTENTION: Mr. Alan Tiefenbach and Planning Staff PROJECT: Rock & Armor Fitness Center 1649 E Pine Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 REGARDING: Certificate of Zoning Compliance / Design Review – Response Letter This document has been written in response to Design Review and Certificate of Zoning Compliance comments by Mr. Alan Tiefenbach and planning staff which were received by Architecture Northwest, PA on Monday, September 14, 2020. It is to accompany and reference revised building elevation sheets as well as other supporting documentation provided in support of the application for approval. The format of this response will follow the same outline as the City’s comments. They are as follows: Site Plan: The outdoor field turf activity area was initially centered on the (2) overhead doors on the east building elevation. In response to the City’s comment that it not be located within 50’-0” of any property boundary, the field turf area was shifted north to be centered on the northern most of the (2) overhead doors, locating it 56’-11” from the southern boundary line at its nearest point. A new revised ‘Architectural Site Plan’ will accompany this response. Lighting Plan: On the site lighting plan / photometric plan the fixture ‘WB1’ was not downcast and shielded. In response the fixture “WB1” will be removed and to provide the needed lighting in the parking area an additional pole lite has been added. A new ‘Site Lighting Plan’ / ‘Site Photometric Plan’ will accompany this response. Landscape Plan: In the plant schedule what should have been labeled “CS” was mislabeled “CB”. The schedule has been corrected to read “CS”. Architecture: ASM 2.1A: This standard requires that buildings with rooflines 50 ft in length or greater must incorporate some variation to break it up. looking at the north elevation (sheet A- 6.0) that was submitted with the CZC/DR application, you can see there are two wider parapet walls at each end of the building, and three narrower parapet walls spaced intermittently along the north elevation . Although it may not be easily legible on a 2d axonometric elevation drawing these walls exceed in height the eave height of the sloping metal roof of the building. As part of the response to staff comments the three narrower parapet walls were extended upwards to match the two end walls terminating 2 at 25’-0” A.F.F. What appears to be gray wall between these parapets is actually the PEMB roof sloping towards the elevation viewer (see also diagram on page 7). This PEMB roof is obscured completely on the west elevation by parapet walls. The East end of the roof is visible on the east elevation and also indicated on the west end by a dashed line on the parapet walls (see diagram below). The parapet walls on the north elevation sum to a total of approx.. 42’-0” in length which is approximately 27% of the north façade, exceeding the ASM required 20%. ASM 3.3D – 3.3E: This standard would require all first floor “applicable facades” to contain 30% fenestration. The goal (3.30) states that this goal applies to “…facades adjacent to public roadways, public spaces, and along primary building entrances,…”. According to the goal this building would have (2) applicable first floor facades, the west façade which faces N Locust Grove road, and the north façade facing E Pine avenue. The west façade easily eclipses the 30% fenestration mark. The north façade does not comply with 30% fenestration across the entire façade. The standard however states that “Big box and buildings in industrial districts may limit applicable façade area to 30-feet around public entries.” Limiting the applicable area of façade to within 30-feet of the primary building entrance, which we are allowed to do in an industrial district, the north façade also complies. We would also request a design exception for the east and south facades but according to the goal for 3.30 they are not “applicable” facades. ASM 3.40: The goal as stated in ASM 3.40, again, only applies to the north and west facades which are the only two facing a roadway or public space. On the west façade the parapet and façade articulation easily complies. As discussed in ASM 2.1A the north façade also complies on both the larger PEMB volume of the building as well as on the smaller building volume at the NW of the site. As with the previous standard we respectfully request a ‘Design Exception’ for the south façade. This façade is very near the southern boundary and will largely be obscured by large existing coniferous trees. This façade also shares the southern boundary with the fenced truck/trailer lot of a commercial trucking company, further minimizing any public visibility. ASM 4.1A: In addition to the suggestion to add additional treatments such as several window lintels, staff also asks (2) questions. The first question posed by staff was; “Is 3 this (architectural standard 4.1A) met on the north elevation?” In the building elevations submitted with the CZC/DR application there are architectural canopies proposed over every entrance/exit door on the building but one. There is also a CMU block wainscot that runs intermittently across the north elevation. Although it may not be easily legible in the two-dimensional elevations there is ample push-pull face articulation across the north elevation. Some of this is evident in the building floor plans but it may be more informative in section. In the wall section below, you can see the articulation as it relates to the PEMB steel line, or gridline #5: In the elevations submitted with the application the CMU block wainscot was designed to be flush with the PEMB steel line or with the face of siding. In response to the staff comments you can now see that the CMU has been pulled outward 6 in. and a CMU wall cap has been added as an additional architectural transition. In the background beyond the CMU cut you can see one of the (3) “columns” which stands 6+ in. from the steel line. Towards the top of wall, you can see another projection in the wall of approximately 4 in. just below the deep boxed soffit where the sloping roof extends between the columns. 4 In just this one section cut, there are (3) different materials, (5) different colors, and (4) different textures. The wall represented in the diagram below is of a portion of wall on the west elevation. It is similar to the diagram above having differing degrees of face articulation as well as material and color application. The diagram below highlights the different depths of the push-pull and the materials assigned. It also highlights how the push and pull occurs at the transition from one material to another. See for instance how the metal siding is framed between the two stucco buildouts. The buildout becomes the transition from one color, texture, and profile material to another. This happens on every façade of the building but more so on the north and west facades as indicated in the diagrams. The second question asked in relation to ASM4.1A was; “Could additional CMU be added to the base of the west elevation?” Meeting with the owners after receiving approval of the CUP, and just prior to submitting for CZC/DR, they asked about adding some stonework to the north elevation. After some discussion about type of stone and color we settled on CMU as a more appropriate choice for the building’s design. The owners did not want to add CMU to the west elevation but conceded that in order to maintain a cohesive design and increase compliance with ASM, some CMU should be added. They were ultimately very concerned with the cost, and that is why more block was not added to the west elevation. A balance must be struck between meeting design standards, and making sure the client is still able to afford the project. ASM 4.1B: This standard relates to architectural canopies and other projections of the building façade which enhance the visual interest of the building and provide relief 5 during inclement weather. As was stated previous, every entrance/exit door on this project is covered by an architectural canopy except one. In the elevations submitted with the application there was one exit egress door on the south end of the west elevation that did not have a cover. The building design originally anticipated the that the exit egress system would need the door in that location to meet travel distance requirements. In response to staff comments, and further consideration of the egress plan, as well as avoiding adding a canopy that would disrupt the visual balance of the west elevation the exit door was removed. The entrance/exit door just to the east on the south elevation will now be the exit. As it regards ASM 4.1B staff also questioned whether something “…could be added above the roll-up doors on the eastern elevation?” As these doors are not going to be used as primary entrance or exit doors it does not make fiscal sense to invest in architectural canopies for these overhead doors. Conceding however that the eastern elevation is disparate with the rest of the building, the north and west elevations in particular, additional detailing was added to the eastern elevation to make it more cohesive. Although not a canopy, a large band the same color as, and mimicking the thickness of the building canopies runs horizontally across the east end between the stucco parapet walls on each side. The wider metal panel siding running vertically and covering the east end wall originally has been removed below the new band. This has been replaced with siding having a narrower profile running horizontally, and of a darker color. This move changes the texture of the east end and also provides more color. ASM 5.1I: This standard prohibits the use of pre-finished metal siding as a primary, or field material except when used with a minimum of two other qualifying materials as outlined in ASM 5.10. Staff comments suggest that this standard is significantly exceeded and that a design exception should be proposed. As has been stated previously, the owners directed the addition of a CMU block wainscot on the north, east, and west facades prior to submitting for CZC/DR. Along with the stucco the addition of the CMU block makes (2) qualifying materials on the north façade with the two profiles of metal siding. In its current revised form the north elevation is approximately 3,464 SF. Of that total there is approximately 1,639 SF of metal panel siding and trim. That equals 47% of the north elevation. Approximately 1,383 SF of that façade is (2) different colors of stucco, equaling 40% of the north elevation. The rest of the elevation is split between the CMU block wainscot and fenestration, each accounting for approximately 6.5%. These numbers indicate a fairly even split between stucco and metal panel siding. This misconception regarding the amount of metal siding may be caused by the limitations of the elevation drawings to convey depth. The diagram below may help clarify by distinguishing between roof and wall. 6 One last point that should be made regarding the metal siding is the quality of the product. The pre-finished metal roof, soffit, and wall panels proposed for this project are not the standard metal building siding panels. These panels proposed, both profiles, conceal their fasteners. These panels are formed and lap so that the fasteners are covered by the adjoining panel. While they are pre-finished metal siding panels, they represent a significant upgrade in quality and fitment. Thank you, Alan, and to the City of Meridian planning staff for your consideration and comments on our CZC/DR application for the Rock and Armor Fitness project. We hope you will appreciate our efforts to comply and grant our design exceptions where necessary. Should you require additional information, documentation, or have any additional questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact us. Thanks again. Kindest regards, Matt Garner Architectural Associate