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