Architectural Review Committee

WHITEFISH ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES March 2, 2021 The meeting was called to order by Shane Jacobs at 8:15AM PRESENT: Christine Bleyhl, Shane Jacobs, Diane Kane, Leslie Lowe, Paul McElroy, Tracy Rossi ABSENT: Stacy Caldwell STAFF: Wendy Compton-Ring, City Councilor, Ben Davis PUBLIC COMMENT: none MINUTES: The minutes from February 2, 2021 were unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS Whitefish Carwash, 6354 Hwy 93 S, removal of SE corner awning, John Constenius (ARC 19-40) John described the change to the building with the awning on the south side of the building and the reasoning for its removal including additional room needed for vehicle maneuvering and a reduction of the south sidewalk to an 18-inch curb. Christine – was the building designed to include an awning? No, it would be difficult to add an awning after the fact Leslie – asked for a summary of all the changes because it appears there were a number of changes as they are reviewing the building elevations; seems like a lot of changes compared to what was originally approved Christine – is it feasible or even possible to add a 12” awning or an eyebrow it thought it would look a little false but it seems possible With four sided architecture it is an important part of the southern elevation – it appears it is missing a key element Shane – agrees, it would help Paul – it didn’t really bother him; doesn’t think a 12-inch would be very helpful to the building or the design Diane – understands what everyone is saying; it’s only a curb and not a place to encourage the public to walk and she wants to make sure people don’t walk over there; doesn’t think a 12-inch awning would really be very helpful Tracy – agrees with Diane; concerned the awning would appear to make it more inviting to the public when it really isn’t for the public; if it’s not for the public it shouldn’t be installed Leslie – agrees; sorry to see the changes but understands the changes; there is a safety bollard to limit public access; disappointed in the overall look of it, but understands why Paul – the roll up door is more of a bother than anything 1 Motion: Diane – move to approve the changes Paul – 2nd Discussion: Diane – noted all changes must be brought to the Committee before they are made Leslie – anxious to see the landscaping Vote: motion passes (5 -1, Bleyhl voting in opposition) North Valley Food Bank, 251 Flathead Avenue, material change, Scott Elden, MT Creative (ARC 21-04) Ron Nash presented the material change for the wainscot for the addition; they found the stone material came back quite expensive and they want to use the roof material for the wainscot around the addition. Paul – the only spot for the metal wainscot? Correct – the only area and the columns will still be rock; it will appear as a ‘back-of-house’ Shane – the elevation will face Baker Avenue and it seems like an odd transition; the last time we reviewed everyone was happy that the addition was going to complement the existing building Paul – would almost prefer the wood to the ground similar to the east elevation than with the proposed metal material; the stone doesn’t have to go all the way to the same height; would be better to see the stone on the north elevation (facing the front of the building) with just siding on the east and south elevations Motion: Christine – move to approve as discussed (stone wainscot on the north elevation and siding on the east and south elevations) Paul – 2nd Discussion: none Vote: motion passes unanimously 34 Lupfer, material change, Matt Lawrance, MT Creative (ARC 20-05) Matt is working with the neighbor to the north re: snow coming off the roof, but they have realized they need materials that can take this abuse and are easier to maintain. He described the materials, color and their application to the north and south elevations. These materials will be able to take the abuse. Christine – changes proposed look nice and consistent with downtown Paul – harder to do this without the actual material samples The Committee reviewed the previous side elevations with the board and batten versus the proposal Paul – it is much better, but sure wishes we could see the materials Diane – doesn’t think it will be very visible on the north side; thinks it is a good solution 2 Tracy – likes the material change; it will hold up better; elevations will not be very visible Leslie – likes the change and likes the green – good to see a bit of color Motion: Tracy – move to approve as submitted Leslie – 2nd Discussion: none Vote: motion passes unanimously NEW BUSINESS North Valley Hospital, 1600 Hospital Way, addition, Joe Grabowski (ARC 21-06) The applicant described the building, materials, colors, and location of the project. Christine – how has the EIFS held up over time; it’s taking some work to make it easier to maintain; not his first choice Leslie – any changes to the landscaping? No, it is mostly surrounded by concrete and gravel, but there is a small area that will be impacted Shane – it is a small addition Christine – looks fine; the application could be a bit more truncated to only represent what this Committee needs to review Paul – looks fine Motion: Paul – move to approve as submitted Christine – 2nd Discussion: none Vote: motion passes unanimously Riverwalk Condos, three buildings, JP Road & Arielle Way, Cushing Terrell (ARC 21-07) The project was at pre-ap last meeting. The applicant reviewed the site plan and noted this is the final phase of the overall project. Noted the changes to the roof compared to the original phase. They are also adding carports to the site, the landscaping is matching the existing and bike parking is included. The applicant described the lighting, materials and colors. It appears some of the buildings are painted a different color and so the applicant has called out that the paint colors will match the adjacent buildings. They are going to work with the HOA to make ensure it all matches and the buildings have been recently updated. Paul – is the architecture match the existing buildings; this is critical for the entire project to make sure it blends together Shane – noted how the buildings are similar and different; agrees with the approach for painting; corner trim and window trim are the only items that vary between buildings 3 Paul – what is the HOA reviewing if it all matches; not sure Motion: Leslie – move to approve as submitted Tracy – 2nd Discussion: none Vote: motion passes unanimously Watson Townhouse, 721 & 723 Icehouse Road, Moser Design (ARC 21-08) Described the project, the entrances and how it meets the garage-forward standards, materials and colors; They are proposing to change the posts to wood and they will go all the way to the deck which will be constructed with Trex decking (both the front and back decks); the front and rear porches will be covered with standing seam metal; landscaping will be determined once the final grading is done in order to complement the neighboring lots which are already constructed Leslie – any retaining walls; this will be determined once the final grading happens; seems like the landscaping is an ‘add-on’ and will be designed while the project is happening; it is a very tight space in between the townhouses Committee discussion about the grading and retaining walls Paul – the elevations need to be cleaned up to match what we are approving Christine – the lap siding all the way below grade is typically a different type of material; it’s a lot of horizontal; consider a different material need to work with the abutting neighbors to see what works best; it will stop 6-inches from the final grade Diane – something else that comes out of the ground – not necessarily stone, but something else Paul – drainage plan? Not yet Leslie – would like to see a lot more indication of what is really happening with landscaping, drainage and retaining walls The Committee discussed the 8-corner requirement in the Arch Review Standards and the new Townhouse/Duplex Standards that also requires a more fully developed landscaping plan Motion: Diane – move to table resubmit and have the applicant review the comments Christine – 2nd Discussion: Diane – felt like this was more of a pre-ap Paul – it will be a challenge to address the 8-corners and the garage-forward standards Vote: motion passes unanimously 4 OTHER ITEMS Kyle Project, Pre-Ap, 1515 Highway 93 W, Fran Quiram, Cushing Terrell The architects described the project, location, site plan, open space/landscaping areas and possible materials Leslie – please note the trees to be retained, identify the landscaping within the storm water pond Diane – this is wonderful, have been wondering what the plans are for the area, very thoughtful concerning landscaping, vehicle parking and pedestrian friendliness – great! Leslie – really likes the parking underground, likes the campus feel – like the large and smaller landscaping areas that can be a bit more intimate, likes the planting space idea for ground floor people, other thoughts – community garden? Excited about seeing this go forward Tracy – likes where this is all going, pretty cool plan, really likes the underground parking and landscaping and how it all goes together Paul – fencing? Some around some of the private ‘front yard’ areas for the ground floor units within the courtyard area; the view of Hwy 93 W will be most important as the vehicles drive by at 45 MPH and standing on the hwy in the front of the project Leslie – appreciate site accessibility, critical with our aging demographics Shane – giving the site back to the people is great; material selection/application is nice Christine – thank you, nice job Paul – save as many trees as possible Would it be wise to do another pre-ap? The Committee thought that would be a good idea and we would welcome it. Gemini Townhome, Pre-Ap, 617 Colorado Avenue & 716 Denver Street, Christine Bleyhl The architect described the project, location, site plan, open space/landscaping areas and possible materials Leslie – next submittal show what the retaining wall would look like; xerispace – how the space is identified and maintained. Visible corner, maintains those aesthetics – keep it looking like a designed space is important Paul – needs to understand our authority because this design is quite different than what we generally see Diane – likes it; meets the standards which are written generally The Committee had a discussion about the design standards; role of the Committee; and how buildings complement the neighborhood Tracy – noted some recent subdivisions in the area that do not blend well within themselves; however, this subdivision can blend within itself since the architect is involved in the design process Shane – Whitefish going to continue to evolve; it is good to see additional types of design with variation and not everything designed to match what has already been approved as the Whitefish ‘look’; either this will help us move forward or will keep us static 5 Other ADU Design Standards – staff provided an update on ADUs (why we are looking at them and the feedback requested of the ARC) Paul – ratio between footprint and height to avoid the ‘tower’ look Christine – ADU could be the same size as the primary with a good design – especially from a massing perspective; materials don’t necessarily have to match the primary structure – there are creative ways for a project to have a different material that could complement the design of the primary structure; sub-note ‘g’ – maybe this should be the primary requirement of the standards; ‘must’ is just too absolute; questions about the rental requirement – what’s the purpose of that? ‘g’ is subjective and more arbitrary – thinks it’s good to give people more options; language doesn’t support Paul – some of them can look pretty bad; doesn’t not necessarily want to add them to the list of items the ARC reviews, but maybe it’s not a bad idea Shane – our current ARC allow for creativity, could be OK to have more bumper rails to help the Planning Department review the design; some of the more subjective items maybe the ARC review? However, we don’t require single-family go through ARC; likes the idea of an appeal process to the Arch Review Committee; should the ARC even get involved? When and if ‘break’ the rules – do we want faux historic or a modern take but complementary Christine – suggested some cities that have addressed ADUs well: Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver BC, Minneapolis – shape and form are addressed versus materiality; suggested a diagram that are helpful Paul – makes sense to review with ADU – now it is 2-units, just like a two-unit building; can be more challenging than a two-unit building; so many things that can go wrong Christine - % of glazing per type of elevation that meets the scale of the bldg. Meeting adjourned at 11:54 AM 6