01-09-13_drminutes

8/13/2019 01-09-13_drminutes

1/17

Design Review CommitteeHearing Minutes of January 9, 2013

______________________________________________________________________________

DRH12-00329 / State of IdahoLocation: 602 and 608 Washington Street and 611 N. 6th StreetDesign Review for a 580 space six-story structured parking garage and reconfiguration of anexisting 54 space surface parking lot in an L-OD (Limited Office with Design Review) zone.

ANDREA TUNING: The property is bound by 6 th, 7 th and Washington Streets. As you can seefrom the site plan the structured parking is proposed to be located on the southern portion of thesite. The history behind this particular parcel is it received a Conditional Use Permit, a heightexception and variances to the street side setbacks to 6 th, 7 th and Washington Streets. This wasapproved by the Planning & Zoning Commission on Monday, January 7, 2013. The site iscurrently a surface parking area. The area does have a history of having parking difficulties so toaddress some of those concerns the State has proposed to construct a parking garage toaccommodate for the surrounding state facilities as well as the Capitol Building parking. If youtake a look at the elevationsit doesnt appear those are coming up for us. The structure is

proposed to be constructed of cream and tan colored precast concrete. It is a traditional structurewe anticipate to function as a parking garage. The concrete walls are precast and in place andthe guardrails do show the horizontal reveals. The stair and elevator towers are a little bitunique. They are located in the corners of the property and they are constructed of the cream andtaupe colored ground faced CMU. Those are accented by the aluminum metal panels as well asaluminum windows, sunshades and coping. The overall design is pretty standard for what wedsee for a parking garage. We have that on the overhead now. This is a color rendering of the

property as well as the materials board so we can see the precast colors as well as the groundfaced CMU colors for this particular case. When we look at the site plan the properties directlyin the vicinity are all zoned LOD. However, there are some unique identifying markers due tothe fact if you cross Franklin Street on the north side it is part of the historic district. Staff hasmade some very minor recommendations for modifications. Weve gone over those with theapplicant and the applicant is in agreement with those. However, we have received one letter ofopposition and that was presented at the January 7, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commissionhearing and is being presented to you this evening. Each of you has been presented with a copyof the letter. The letter is from Victor U. Hofstetter, dated January 2, 2013. The main concernestablished throughout the letter is the concern between the transition to the single-storydevelopment which exists within the areaprimarily in the historic district moving up to the

CommitteeMembers Present

James Marsh, Chairman, Tom Zabala, David Rudeen and Nic Cota (Student)

Team MembersPresent

Sarah Schafer, Andrea Tuning, Rob Lockward and NickiHeckenlively
http://pdsonline.cityofboise.org/pdsonline/details.aspx?id=DRH12-00329&type=dochttp://gisweb.cityofboise.org/imf/imf.jsp?site=pds_agenda&qlyr=40&qzoom=true&qhlt=true&qry=PARCEL=%27%27http://gisweb.cityofboise.org/imf/imf.jsp?site=pds_agenda&qlyr=40&qzoom=true&qhlt=true&qry=PARCEL=%27%27http://gisweb.cityofboise.org/imf/imf.jsp?site=pds_agenda&qlyr=40&qzoom=true&qhlt=true&qry=PARCEL=%27%27http://gisweb.cityofboise.org/imf/imf.jsp?site=pds_agenda&qlyr=40&qzoom=true&qhlt=true&qry=PARCEL=%27%27http://pdsonline.cityofboise.org/pdsonline/details.aspx?id=DRH12-00329&type=doc

8/13/2019 01-09-13_drminutes

2/17

Design Review Committee Hearing Minutes: January 9, 2013Page 2 of 17

proposed six-story structure proposed. Staff has taken a look at the letter. The applicant didreceive the Conditional Use Permit as well as the height exception which was evaluated by thePlanning & Zoning Commission and the determination was made the six-story structure wasappropriate. Also, at that meeting the applicant was granted variances to the street side varianceson 6 th, 7 th and Washington Streets. Essentially, we are looking at the design elements and if theyare appropriate, if the landscaping requirements of the City are being meant and if the applicanthas presented a well thought out design. Based on staffs review and the minor modifications werecommend we are in support of the six-story structure proposed by the applicant.

COMMITTEE MEMBER ZABALA: What was the outcome of Planning & ZoningCommission hearing?

ANDREA TUNING: The Planning & Zoning Commission hearing was held on Monday,January 7, 2013. The applicant was granted a Conditional Use Permit for the use, the heightexception which would allow the 61 feet proposed and the street side setbacks as presented in thestaff report.

APPLICANT TESTIMONY

WAYNE THOWLESS (LKV Architects / Representative): I would like to speak briefly aboutthe variance requests even though it was dealt with at the Planning & Zoning Commissionhearing because there is concern by the neighbors regarding those variance requests and theaction taken by the Planning & Zoning Commission. I would like to give you a little backgroundon the thinking there. Unfortunately we dont have the bes t of images available for everyone tosee, but well make due. I didnt bring board backups, but I should have. As you see in thisview this is looking at the garage from the corner of 6 th and Washington. It is the southeastcorner. Youll see that the highest portion of the structure is along Washington Street or the

south side of the building. The north half of the garagethe top of the upper most guard wall isa few inches over the 45 foot height limit for this zoning district. In order to get the number of

parking spaces required by the state on the site in the available area in a two-baystructure those relatively small number of spaces we could not accommodate on the five basiclevels within the height limit of the area. We did put on the south side of the garage acrossWashington from the Len B. Jordan Building which is of comparable height to this structure.We tried to keep the highest portion of the garage as far from the residences and businesses onFranklin Street as possible. The 60 plus foot height Andrea mentioned only occurs at the stairtower at this extreme southeast corner of the building. The actual six floor level, the guardelevation is about 55 feet. The setback variances were required for two reasons. The statesgeothermal well which is used to heat all the buildings on Capitol Mall is located on this

property and cannot be relocated. We had to as youll see on some of the floor plan drawings basically build this garage around that well. We had to position the well out of the drive aisles sothis forced the structure to move a little further south which was the reason behind the setbackvariance on the south side or the Washington street side. The setback variances on the east andwest, 6 th and 7 th Streets were primarily due to the fact of keeping the ramp slopes within codeallowances. Our floor-to-floor distance between the street level and the second level is theabsolute minimal allowed to get accessible parking on the first level. With that difference inheight which is about 11 foot, 4 inches, our ramp is right at code maximum slope. The only waywe could have kept the ramp at this slope or less than this slope within the setbacks in the LODZone would have been to not have any parking at the end bays or the ends of the structure. This

8/13/2019 01-09-13_drminutes

3/17


creates a much less efficient structure because you have a whole lot more aisle not bound by parking spaces. It runs your costs up and it lowers your parking capacity which in turn wouldadmit even more of the structure having been in excess of the height limit for the area. I hopethis explains the reasons for the variances and that they werent arbitrar y and not needed. Thecolor scheme of the building is a mixture of cream and taupe. The exterior surfaces of theconcrete garage portion of the structure will be painted. The columns a cream color and theguards a taupe color. The stair towers in the corners will be honed face block of those same twocolors. All of the curtain wall are store front aluminum both the framing, the spandrel panelsand the sunshades are all clean anodized aluminum. With regard to landscaping basicallyeverything behind the sidewalk between the sidewalk and the structure is low growingshrubbery. The State wants this material t o be fairly low so it doesnt get high enough that

people can hide in it or cause other problems. All of the trees are out in the planting strip between the sidewalk and the street and that is public right-of-way. The street tree layout meetsthe specified spacing requirements of the City Ordinance and it keeps the trees away from thestructures so there is less long term maintenance problems with branches growing into the garageand leaves blowing into it, etc. This touches on the most important design aspects.

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: How does this building relate to a pedestrian walkingaround it ? Whenever we see a parking garage or at least when Ive worked on one the idea ofhaving the sloped side of the garage facing the part of the building most visible and apparent to a

pedestrian or anybody going by it is sort of a no-no. You want to flip it around and youll hide itand this kind of stuff. I believe what Im hearing you say is the reason youve flipped -floppedthat and decided to show us all those ramp-ups is because of the height?

WAYNE THOWLESS: The ramp could have gone on either the south bay or north bay ofgarage. As you can see from the site plan this garage is only filling the south half of the block.The State owns the north half of the block. The State wants to retain the option of possibly

extending this structure northward in the future, but possibly not to this full height. Being able toadd on additional parking decks to the flat parking deck portion of the structure provides forgreater flexibility in design in that future phase rather than having the ramp limit access points

between the first phase and a possible second phase. This was the primary reason the ramp was put on the south side. It also had to do with internal circulation. Not wanting the ramps to lineup with the entrance and egress points on 7 th and 6 th Streets. This was a fundamental designdecision and the pros and cons of what to do were discus sed quite a bit. Youre rightaesthetically it wasnt the optimum choice for a pedestrian.

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: You show as your infill panels between columns as honedface CMU, but I see a lot of reveals going onkind of linear stuff. Please explain what that

really looks like.

WAYNE THOWLESS: The guard panels are actually not block. They are concrete, but theyhave horizontal recesses or reveals in them. This is to give some texture to those surfaces and totie them in aesthetically with the block which of course has coursing at eight inches on center.Those horizontal reveals are at eight inches on center. The only honed faced block in thestructure is the stair towers. The columns of the garage are cast-in-place concrete painted creamand the guards are cast-in-place concrete painted taupe.

8/13/2019 01-09-13_drminutes

4/17


COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: Back to the pedestrian that has to walk around this building all the time. Your stair towers look great. They feel like a building and they have allthe elements you would expect. They have canopies that bring the scale of what you expectthere, but the garage is just a garage. There is no attempt on the first level except for lowlandscaping to try to diminish anything about it being a parking lot and a bunker of a building.Was there ever any discussion or thought of trying toof course it is probably difficult as soonas you decided to flip the building and have the ramp part on front. Can you visit this?

WAYNE THOWLESS: Yes, there were some conversations with the State about possiblefaade treatments and whatnot which would screen the vehicles from view and in part create adifferent aesthetic or look to the building. I know you hear this all the time and I hate to use it asan excuse, but the budget for this project is extremely, extremely slim. There just isnt money inthe project and budget to do much in the way of add-on aesthetic treatments which would

potentially make the building less like a parking structure and screen the vehicles, etc. I wishthere was.

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: In your submissions youve given nice examples of thelighting and how it works, but I didnt see any l ight fixtures that are on the interior of the

building. This building is so open anybody who walks by it is going to see what those lightfixtures look like and theyll see that light cascading out of the building.

WAYNE THOWLESS: That is true.

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: Have you selected that fixture or do you have anything tosay about that?

WAYNE THOWLESS: It is a fairly utilitarian fixture and at the moment the choice of exact

fixture is still in limbo. The specific fixture the electrical engineer has proposed is beingrevisited for a variety of reasons. The one thing I can say is that the lighting photometric whichwas part of the application reflected up to about 10-footcandles within the structure. That islikely going to decrease with the possible selection of a different fixture. During the day youwont see the fixtures and at night when the light is on you wont see the fixture all youll see isthe light. If you drive around and look at parking garages at night and see the sources of lightyou have no idea where the light is coming from.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: What is the material of the inside deck the ceiling or the underside ofthe deck above?

WAYNE THOWLESS: All surfaces inside the garage are natural exposed concrete.

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: As part of your planning for this did you do any schemesthat show how youre going to possibly add on to this on the north block or is this w ay too farout there and nobody wanted to entertain that?

WAYNE THOWLESS: Our firm was retained by the State of Idaho, prior to our bid coming outfor design/build services, to do a site analysis and feasibility studies of several sites on CapitolMall and what the potential capacities were and what the opportunities were on each one. At thattime we evaluated a five-story structure on the south side of the site and a three-story garage on

8/13/2019 01-09-13_drminutes

5/17


the north to try to get higher parking capacity than what weve ended up with here. Beyond thiswe have not done any studies. The S tate doesnt honestly know if t heyll ever w ant to add ontothis garage, but most of the conversations have centered around if this were to happen it wouldlikely be a lower structure than this first phase.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY

DANA HOFSTETTER: My husband and I own Ten Dod, LLC. We own the building at 608West Franklin Street where I have practiced law since 1997. As you are well aware it is thiscommittees responsibility to protect the aesthetic values of the community. This project isgoing to be a big eyesore and I frankly dont find the States argument that there is no money inthe budget to take care or the aesthetic issues convincing or something this body should consider.Your job as it states it in the Citys ordinances is to review site, landscape and structure design

per the objectives, findings, considerations and guidelines contained within Chapter11-07. The budgetary issues are not your issues. Obviously they could have made a shorter structure and putmore money into aesthetics if that had been a concern of theirs. Referring to the otherordinances, a more specific ordinance allows you to review the landscaping screens. As theapplicant has admitted the landscaping screen is going to be very low. It is only going to be onthe south side so the historic neighborhood to the north is not going to have the benefit ofscreening although there are some older trees on Franklin Street, but the building itself will nothave any landscaping on the north side. Also, as this body is aware, from Ordinance 11-07-03.02 this body can look at building mass, proportion of building facades, the relationship ofopenings in the facades and the aesthetic perspective of the building in its decision making. Myhusband is going to speak after me and he will discuss how some of the other buildings includinga parking garage nearby try to incorporate some of the features of the Capitol Building todisguise parking structure. He has some pictures he will show you. I wanted to show you thenorth side of the building ( no pictures of north side ). The north side which will be visible to the

historic neighborhood is a standard issue, ugly concrete parking garage. In a nutsh ell what wereseeking is screening like the pictures my husband will show to hide the cars. There should be nocars visible to the North End historic neighborhood. The design of the building should havesome features to integrate it with the Capitol Building and the surrounding neighborhood whichthe other buildings in the area do have. Appropriate screening for the north side with tallerlandscaping all the way around and no visible cars at all. It is an affront to the neighborhood.

VICTOR HOFSTETTER: I brought in some pictures I wanted to show you. This is a picture ofthe neighborhood to the north of the proposed area and the type of dwellings that exist there.This is on the same block as the proposed parking structure and I believe it is called the KnudsenHouse which is a historical house. It marks the type of houses that often exist in the

neighborhood. This is the nearest neighbor. This is the Len B. Jordan Building. It is a three-story building estimated last night by the architect to be between 42-45 feet tall even though it isthree stories. Notice the vertical type of architecture it has such as the posts everywhere and thecolumns. The next picture shows the same building as seen from across the street to the north.This is the current view the neighborhood has of the Capitol and the Len B. Jordan building infront. It looks almost like the same building. We see the same vertical type of marks andcolumns on the Capitol as we see in the windows. Even the columns of the Len B. JordanBuilding tend to try to match the openings of the Capitol domethe lower ones that you see. I nmy opinion this is a nice design. This is a parking garage view from pictures taken nearly fromthe exactly the same spot as the other one if you shifted the camera. You still see the Capitol

8/13/2019 01-09-13_drminutes

6/17


Building and you see this existing parking garage. This is across 6 th Street. It tended to mimicthe architecture of the Capitol as well as the Len B. Jordan Building. Even the columns of this

building look quite similar to the columns of the Len B. Jordan Building. There is no immediateindication there are cars parked in there. They are not visible and it looks to me like this is goingto be considered a four or five-story garage. This is the Len B. Jordan Building later at nightshowing the architecture which matches the Capitol. What I want to compliment is thearchitecture done at that time. All of the buildings were put together with a real emphasis onunity of design and impact in contrast to the proposed structure which at its lowest point would

be similar in height if not already a little bit higher than the Len B. Jordan Building. Theadjoining part of the structure will be higher than the Len B. Jordan Building. It is a standard

parking garage put into a historic district and there could be something done to try to make themall match a little bit better in height and in aesthetics.

BOB RICHMOND: We own the building two down from these folks at 620 W. Franklin. Thatwas where I went to first grade. It used to be Central School. The architect gave some numberson the height that dont seem to jive with the Len B. Jordan Building. I think he said 61 feet atthe top. Did you say that fit in with the same height as the Len B. Jordan Building or did Imisunderstand? The architect said one height, but we think this is going to be substantiallyhigher than the Len B. Jordan Building. Im just trying to get some clarification.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: Well ask the applicant to address the height issue and concerns.

WAYNE THOWLESS: The north side of the garage at the top of the guard wall is within inchesof 45 fee t. I dont know the exact height of the Len B. Jordan Building, but I believe it is fairlyclose to the same height of about 45 feet. Yes, the south side of the garage will exceed thatgoing up to a guard height of approximately 55 feet. The only place on the garage where we hitthe maximum 60 foot height is at the top of the stair tower at the southeast corner. The stair

tower at the southwest corner on 7th

and Washington is actually lower because the adjacent parking deck at that point on the garage is lower.

MARTIN SANTOYA (Project Manager / State of Idaho): Ill address some of the concernsvoiced by the neighbor. Going back to the question about the height of the Len B. JordanBuilding. It is 45 feet at the parapet. I have record drawings for that project. The existing

parking garage is at 70 feet at the stair tower and I have records documents for that as well, but Idont have them here with me. I want to give you the overview. As Wayne said, we provided astudy and we went through the whole process. This is all a result of House Resolution 47 fromthe State Legislation of 2012. It was one of the documents attached to the narrative/letter wesubmitted. In that we were given a maximum of 8 million dollars and this is where the budget

was set. This is what we have and we cant really go back to this legislative session to requestadditional funding for additional improvements. Were working within this and they also gaveus the quantity of parking spaces and that is where we have the program. From there we did thestudy and everything centers around this building and the Capitol because it was the legislatorsapproved this bill. Because of this there are a couple of criteria they gave to us as far asarchitecturethat it does match some of the Capitol Mall architecture . Very general and thatsabout the extent of it. Also, that itnot necessarily illuminate out and I cant remember theexact wording from the administrator and legislative offices, but our Capitol building is knownas The Temple of Enlightment or Temple of Light. As you saw in the background review on theoverhead our Capitol dome is supposed to represent that so it is in the minds of the legislators

8/13/2019 01-09-13_drminutes

7/17


and they go through here and exist through the tunnel system. This will have a future tunnel intoto this parking garage for the legislators to access in/out from the Capitol Building to this parkinggarage. This is future project and who knows when that will happen. As well w ere talkingabout Phase 2. As far as the placing of the buildings raised along Washington and the aesthetics,the human scale , pedestrian environment and that sort of thingwe did look at that as far as howare we going to impact the Len B. Jordan Building. Believe me we heard comments from ourown staff because theyll be looking at this building out their office windows. There has been alot of internal dialogue/discussion/charrettes if you will before we went for a Request forQualifications (RFQ) on this project. That is a little of the background. As far as theinformation Mr. Thowless has provided regarding building heights, etc. he is pretty accurate asfar as the information were able to give to him to design this building.

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: In the cover letter you referred to you said that the HouseResolution dictated to you the number of spaces and I dont see it in there .

MARTIN SANTOYA: I apologize if it is not in there and if it is not in there it is in theirsummary resolution which I have that in my binder and I can submit that for the record. Andreais pulling up that information up right now. Mr. Thowless just handed it to me the fiscal noteand the statement of purpose. This is the information that was approved. I dont have theirminutes attached to this. The minutes discuss why they came up with these numbers for not onlythe parking quantity, but also the budget. Parkingwe didn t discuss a lot about that, but if weuse the current s tandards for the number of square feet the Capitol Mall has were about 1,600

parking spaces short of the required ordinance ratio. Off the top of my head and it is in thisresolution, but we have 2,300 state employees and we have 1,600 permits and we have anywhere

between 1,200-1,900 parking spaces depending on if legislation is in session or not. I bring thisto your attention because this is what we have and what they consider a legitimate State interest.The parking studies actually started in 1977 concurrent with the existing parking garage and

when it was being constructed. The Central Plant which is in the basement of that garage wasconstructed in 1970 and the garage was under construction in 1977. At that time there was the

beginning of a somewhat parking crunch. The 2000 Master Plan Study which provided some ofthese numbers indicated the number of sites in the Capitol Mall. As Wayne mentioned this is themost viable and feasible site for this parking garage. We have other sites, but they would notmeet the legitimate State interest which is in this house. Did you care for the minutes?

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: No. Im fine.

COMMITTEE MEMBER ZABALA: Has there been legislative review of this final scheme?

MARTIN SANTOYA: Those legislators for this building have not reviewed thisconcept/scheme. The legislative offices have reviewedJeff Youtz, Executive Director of TheLegislative Offices, has approved the concept and it has gone through, as you know, the manyhoops of that pr ocess. Thats where were at, at this point.

COMMITTEE MEMBER ZABALA: The reason I ask is I wonder if the legislators, the onesresponsible to the public, were to view this and look at it beyond lower mid-management wouldthey be happy with the solution other than meeting the budget and car count.

8/13/2019 01-09-13_drminutes

8/17


MARTIN SANTOYO: Thats pretty s ubjective and open- ended. I think youre going to havesomebodybeauty is in the eye of the beholder. Their criteria just said this in the fiscal note andalso a few antidotal comments that were given to Jeff Youtz the Legislative Offices ExecutiveDirector and that is who has been overseeing this with my office. They have not reviewed thisthough.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: Do you know the projected stall costs?

MARTIN SANTOYA: In the neighborhood of 12-13 thousand per stall. It is approximately 41dollars a square foot.

WAYNE THOWLESS: Id like to commend Mr. Hofstetter for his architectural analysis and hemade some very valid points. When we were in conceptual design some of the things hementioned were considering. W e very much would have liked to do some type of screening orvertical element over the openings at least on the street facing facades of the structure, but as Imentioned before because that is pretty much exclusively a non-essential, non-functional elementin terms of the operation of the garage there was just not money to do so. You can say with acost of 41 dollars per square foot that is pretty lean mean construction. The House Resolutionrequested 600-800 spaces. For a variety of reasons the State has accepted 580 . Were actually

proposing a smaller structure than some of the legislators really wanted. There are obviouslysome that would have like to have seen close to 800 spaces on that site, but the budget theyestablished definitely would not support that. In our analysis of the Capitol Mall architecture andnot just the Capitol, but the other offices buildings we observed monolithic construction andmaterials and monochromatic color schemes. We tried to address this in our concept. Anotherthing from the antidotal comments that were made that Martin shared, not specifically we tookand Martin took as not wanting a design that in anyway called attention to itself or overpoweredthe other architecture in the Capitol Mall. We tried to keep it subdued while adding some

interest at the stair towers which is where the pedestrians and the users have the greatest interfacewith the garage and let the rest of the garage be what it may.

MARTIN SANTOYA: Id be remised to not mention security. Security should be in theforefront of my mind, but we have a security manager in the Capitol Mall and they reviewed the

project as well and they have been part of the design process . These concerns were talk ingaboutthey have been right there with us in talking about screens. How can we look into the

building and how can we look out of the building. The purpose for the design of the stair towerswith as much glass as it has is primarily for security reasons. Aesthetic results because of theglazing and the store front , but that really wasnt the purpose of glazing windows. It was forsecurity. I add this for your consideration.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: I have a lot of trouble with this project. Ive walked thatneighborhood and Im a downtown person. There is a historic neighborhood right behind it.This is a well done parking garage and it would fit in a lot of locations and look terrific, but Ireally struggle that this is something trying to be done to cheaply in a spot that deserves better. Itstarts with all the things Ive visited about. From now on people going down that street will haveto look at the angle side of that parking instead of something that resembles a nice layering affectthat may match up better with the adjacent architecture. There is nothing that tries to bring the

8/13/2019 01-09-13_drminutes

9/17


scale of this building down to a pedestrian level as you walk along 6 th or 7 th Street or virtuallyany of the elevations. I hear all the arguments about trying to accommodate the expansion on the

back, but who knows when that expansion will happen. By flip-flopping the building and havingat least the banding effect on the front of it and giving yourself an opportunity to createarchitectural elements that will make it feel more like it belongs in the neighborhood and thatyou could walk by it and not just know youre walking by a parking structure. It seems like itopens up those opportunities and it does not preclude the ability to expand. I struggle with this.

COMMITTEE MEMBER ZABALA: I would basically concur with Committee MemberRudeens comments . However, I must also acknowledge when this project did come up in theState with the RFQ our firm was one of the firms that responded to it. Again in that process wecame to pretty much the same conclusion this design team has. There was significant challengein trying to meet the States goals for the amount of parking for the budget they identified.Unfortunately this community finds itself in this situation more often than not in difficulteconomic times. Weve got plenty of examples of projects that reflect great concepts, but poorexecution because times and circumstances and the processes want to see something developedand there is a need they havent developed. There is no other way to get it done than to pushthese things through. Somebody once told me that anybody will drink swamp water if you getthirsty enough and this is unfortunately the kind of situation we find ourselves in a lot of timeson this committee. Given what the mandate has been the design team has done probably as gooda job as they can. Our firm did an eight-story parking structure for the Boise Plaza Buildingwhich was completed a few years ago and it was not a lot different in terms of building up half a

block. We were at 950 cars and struggled vitally with the same thing. Our solution was probably not a whole lot different than this in terms of the materials proposed and the look. It isthere, you can look at it, it works there and it is more consistent probably with the context at thatlocation. This particular project when you look at the Len B. Jordan Building and the existing

parking structurethose were done by the same architectural firm in the same period of time

with different budgets because there are a lot of pre-casts and articulation on those buildingswhich you simply cant afford to do today unless youyou do have to meet the pocket. I dowish there would be somebody within the legislature and somebody with a higher power couldlook at this and have the same concerns we do for what they are trying to do there on that sitewith the quality of the buildings that are there right now in our State Capitol Mall and that a

better job c an be done on this. I dont know what we can do in the circumstances here if all thatis left is the skin on this building to deal with. The functionality of the building works very well,

but the skin is where the money is on these things. The cost at 12-13 thousand a square foot for a parking stall is not unusual for these. It only goes up as you start to add more on the skin.Unless the legislature or some committee is willing to dig a little deeper to find some additionalmoney I dont know how well accomplish anything more than theyve got in this building.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: Both post some very compelling arguments each way and I agree with both of you. The only thing that concerns me is I assume this is almost over budget as wediscuss it as it is. I know there have been some parking projects which have come in under

budget recently as they were bid. A couple of things that bother me are probably the same thingas Committee Rudeen has with the sloping decks facing Washington Street and having a nearly

block long ramp without any kind of faade break of some sort seems excessive. I do believethere is potential for using some of the same materials and possibly a different way we couldcome up with a result somewhat better without adding a lot of cost to the building. It is a catch-22 on some of these things. I understand the neighborhood concern. As this pushes farther north

8/13/2019 01-09-13_drminutes

10/17


beyond the typically Capitol Mall youre really starting to get into the transitional neighborhoodsand you hope for more. I do like the stair tower elements as well. Those are a good use of glasswith the safety and aesthetics and such. I dont know that Im real comfortable with it at thistime with it either.

COMMITTEE MEMBER COTA: Im going to repeat what everyone else said. I agree that the building is plain to me. It seems that it will be an eyesore the way it is right now to surroundingelements and neighborhood especially as Mr. Hoffstetter has pointed out with the verticalelements of certain buildings around it. It is not represented here, but the angle of the garageitself seems kind of strange with the neighborhood it is in. Im not blaming the architects oranything like that. They havent had much money to deal with, but right now it is a hard thing todo and Im not sure if right now is a good time to make such a structure the way things are in thefinancial sense.

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN MOVED TO DENY DRH12-00329 Im not sure in adenying motion that I have the criteria Id like to subject it to. How does this work in a motionsense?

SARAH SCHAFER: You have your findings for design review which is site layout, buildingmodulation, faade articulation and fitting in with the surrounding neighborhood. What youdwant to do is make your findings that the project as proposed does not meet those findings. Youhave stated you wish to deny the application based on Finding A, that it does not comply withthe design of adjoining properties or however youd like to state that.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: Denial means they can reapply?

SARAH SCHAFER: Yes. They can appeal with a substantially different project within the next

month if they wish to do that. They can also appeal to the Planning & Zoning Commission.Because youre making a motion for denial which is op posite of what staff recommends wewould bring the findings back to you at the next hearing so we can make sure weve adequatelyreflected those findings and allow them to appeal. As part of that motion you can also providethem with some direction as to what youd like to see in the next iteration as well.

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: Maybe that is where Im struggling. With me being onthe other side of the fence when you get denied for something you want to know where youreheading from there.

SARAH SCHAFER: You can also add that information as part of your motion.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: What are the worksession options available so we could continue to thisto a worksession?

SARAH SCHAFER: If you believe the design is close or is something a worksession might helpyou could definitely do that. There again, I would provide them with very clear direction onwhat it is youd like to see come back at a worksession. If, at that point, this is what you decideto do I would open it back up to see if there is a specific worksession date they can meet therequirements youre looking for.

8/13/2019 01-09-13_drminutes

11/17


COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN MOVED TO DENY DRH12-00329 BASED ON ITNOT FITTING ADEQUATELY INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BASED ON THECURRENT DESIGN. THE APPLICANT SHALL ADDRESS THE SITE SPECIFICCONDITIONS STAFF PROVIDED IN 1. A.-F. AS WELL AS TAKE THE INCLINERAMPING OF THE BUILDING AND PUT IT ON THE BACKSIDE OF THEBUILDING, DO SOMETHING SCALE WISE ON THE GROUND LEVEL TO MAKE ITINTEGRATE MORE TO A PEDESTRIAN AND PROVIDE SOME SORT OFSCREENING SO THE BACK SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE IS THE LEASTOFFENSIVE TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.

COMMITTEE MEMBER ZABALA: Are we better off as opposed to denying it to take thosesame comments and move it to a worksession?

SARAH SCHAFER: It could be done either way. Definitely a lot of what you are requesting isredesign of the project versus minor tweaks to a design. It may actually be better to do a denialfor this specific construction. We could get it on our next agenda pretty quickly depending onthe applicant s ability to turn the design around . I also dont know the applicants willingness tomeet some of those criteria. If they are able toI know this sound s simple and isnt, but flip the

building so along the street you dont have the ramp incline, but you have the flatter decks. Thisis something they may be able to do easily as part of a worksession. However, the additionaldetail of providing a more integrated design with the surrounding properties is going to have

budget implications and is quite possibly something they are not able to do and they may justwish to proceed forward with a denial up to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN : My motion doesnt preclude that we can end up in aworksession?

SARAH SCHAFER: Yes. It would preclude the worksession. Another thing you could do isopen it back up and have a little more discussion with the applicant. If you do this you have toallow additional public testimony from everyone else who has testified tonight. You can take astance and decide denial.

COMMITTEE MEMBER ZABALA: With a denial the applicant could appeal and go toPlanning & Zoning.

SARAH SCHAFER: They could.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: For clarity of process here if this was denied and the applicant came in

with a new project and the price came in over budget could they bring a value engineered version back to

SARAH SCHAFER: They could bring a value engineered version back to the Design ReviewCommittee.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: For review at that time?

8/13/2019 01-09-13_drminutes

12/17


SARAH SCHAFER: Correct. We could do that as a modification. To remind you we do have amotion on the table that has not been seconded. If it is not seconded it will die for a lack of asecond and well try again.

COMMITTEE MEMBER COTA SECONDED THE MOTION.

ROB LOCKWARD (Legal Counsel): The student member cannot second the motion because heis a non-voting member.

COMMITTEE MEMBER ZABALA: Im torn on this one.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: If yo ure not willing to second is there going to be a motion forapproval?

COMMITTEE MEMBER ZABALA SECONDED THE MOTION.

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: We keep coming back to this budget issue and I thinkDana said it best our job isnt to determine whether this thing is on budget. If somebody wasgiven the cheapest possible car park number and they said go Mr. Architect and build us that,that doesnt mean this building is appropriate for the neighborhood because they did it at that

price. We all want to be good stewards of money and the State is like anybody else t heyretrying to get the best bang for the buck. I personally dont want to walk by this thing and say,Gosh, we should have done better right there. It wasnt because it was poorly planned and f orthe money what was designed looks terrific. It just needs more.

ROLL CALL VOTE 3:0. MOTION CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY.

ZOA12-00006 / City of BoiseCity of Boise is requesting a recommendation from the Design Review Committee to thePlanning and Zoning Commission on the adoption of new Citywide Design Guidelines andaccompanying ordinance language. ( This item was deferred at the November 14, 2012 and

December 12, 2012 hearings. )

SARAH SCHAFER: This is for the recommendation for the adoption of the Boise CitywideDesign Standards and Guidelines. Y oud be recommending approval or adoption of thisdocument to the Planning & Zoning Commission who would then send their recommendationonto Boise City Council. In conjunction with the Citywide Design Standards and Guidelineswhich youve seen in the past we are also suggesting ordinance language which would place this

into what is currently Boise City Code Section 11-07-03.3, which requires compliance withadopted design guidelines and plans. We would specifically reference this document. It is a newcode section in the new Zoning Ordinance that is headed to City Council on January 29, 2013. Ihave it in the new version as well. Staff has received comments of concern from the Planning &Zoning Commission as part of previous worksessions. We do have comments stating they

believe the document is relatively lengthy and may be confusing to property owners or businessowners. Wed like to have some feedback from you as the Design Review Committee and theowners of the document to the Planning & Zoning Commission in regard to that. We have heardcomments that the document doesnt necessarily reflect Boise. Boise being an area veryconscience of its outdoors, foothills, greenspace and its parks.
http://pdsonline.cityofboise.org/pdsonline/details.aspx?id=ZOA12-00006&type=dochttp://pdsonline.cityofboise.org/pdsonline/details.aspx?id=ZOA12-00006&type=doc

8/13/2019 01-09-13_drminutes

13/17


CHAIRMAN MARSH: Did this document change at all since weve seen it at the last hearing?

SARAH SCHAFER: It has not. This document, you would recommend approval for, containsnew graphics in regards to level of review so those are clearly delineated both in verbiage andtext as well as graphically. It also contains the new layout for the site context sheet which

provides information architects should consider as part of laying out the site and where they canfind those pieces as well as an area for them to answer the questions. The other area of concernwas the departures. We have heard concerns that the departures provide a de facto variance tothe Design Guidelines. We wondered if there were a better way to treat that or some other nameto call it so it doesnt seem like were allowing variances for projects that shouldnt be receivingthem. The one other item of concern was the presence of New Urbanism Standards. Thedocument is strong in regards to new urbanism standards of pushing the buildings up to the streetwith parking to the side and behind the structures. Staff received direction from Boise CityCouncil that this is di rection theyd like to go especially on our gateway streets. We have as partof the document put together maps which show the streets wed like to have as storefront ,commercial or landscaped streets. Those would be the streets were we would be requesting newurbanism standards with the buildings up to the street with parking to the sides and rear. Thiswas put in through a request from Boise City Council as well as the Blueprint Boise document,our new comprehensive plan which talks a lot about bringing the buildings up to the street andstarting to frame our gateway streets. Staff requests the Committee make a recommendation ofapproval to the Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: The Urban Land Institute (ULI) was involved in part of the review process as well is this correct?

SARAH SCHAFER: ULI was involved. We did put together a subcommittee. I believe I gave

you a list of our subcommittee members. Hilary Soltman who was on the subcommittee waswith ULI and took the information back to her organization. I have also visited the AmericanInstitute of Architects (AIA) numerous times over the last couple months to provide them withupdates and Ive also been in contact with several different real estate agencies. I went toCommercial Real Estate Women (CREW) several times to present the document as well as theDevelopment Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) . Im been to all of them.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: Are there recent comments other than those you stated from otheroutside public?

SARAH SCHAFER: I did receive a phone call from Miguel ( no last name ) who was with a real

estate company and he left me a voice mail. He wanted to know what the document was andwhat the implications were. He wondered if it was an ordinance text amendment or if it was

broader. I called him back and left him a message stating it was a whole new document thattalks about site design, building modulation, rooflines, windows and provides a lot more detailand that were hoping to use it as a base of discussion with property owners and applicants sowere all starting on a little bit more common ground of discussion versus some broad ordinancestandards which require modulation similar to the surrounding area so we have a little lessdiscussion of what we had earlier tonight in regards to the parking garage with more directionand the guidelines provide this.

8/13/2019 01-09-13_drminutes

14/17


CHAIRMAN MARSH: My thought on the lengthy document comment they had is Id ratherhave a more clearly defined design intent in the document itself. This is resolved with thehyperlinks or l inking with the document where you dont have to search through the pages. It iseasily navigated to the portion youre looking for. Once you get there you may have more text,

but this helps bring out the design intent in multiple fashions, which I think is a good thing.

SARAH SCHAFER: The length of the document is also because it heavily imaged. We have alot of maps and photographs so you can be looking at what is and is not appropriate as well.

COMMITTEE MEMBER ZABALA: Is the final format vertical or landscape?

SARAH SCHAFER: The final format is landscape. The nice thing about this document is youcan utilize it in hard copy. Whereas with the new Zoning Ordinance is much better document toutilize electronically. It is much more intuitive and much more user friendly electronically. Thisone can go both ways which is a nice feature.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: Some of the comments from the last worksession included CommitteeMember Koci talking about the on-line narratives or how you address those. There is theworksheet in this?

SARAH SCHAFER: Yes. Sections 1.1 and 1.2 are worksheets that can be filled out by anyoneutilizing the document for site development. Our consultant has agreed that they will provide uswith PDF versions you can fill in and type in electronically so if a property owner or someonewishes to do this this would be at their disposal as well. This could be something they submitwith their application so you have answers to some of the questions located in the DesignGuidelines.

COMMITTEE MEMBER ZABALA: It wont be able to be saved? The applications now cant be saved and youve got to get them right the first time or youre done.

SARAH SCHAFER: The good news is our applications are moving to a point where you cansave them an d you dont have to finish them all at once. I do believe we can get this to thatstandard as well to where you can save it and come back and fill in more.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: This wouldnt be something that is required necessarily, but is maybehelpful?

SARAH SCHAFER: Correct. It may be something required at a later date and you may find it

useful.

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: We talked about the concerns about length and the one wehavent talked about are the departures . Were doing a project in Seattle and they use this samelanguage. An urban land person would probably know is this where people are migrating forexceptions?

SARAH SCHAFER: I do believe they are. The reason being we want to put standards outthere, but we also want to make it easy for good design and approval. As long as they aremeeting the intent statement for each section this departure allows you to do this at the level of

8/13/2019 01-09-13_drminutes

15/17


review youre currently going for . You dont have to request additional applications to be ableto do a good design. With that said, we do have to make sure it is the good design wereallowing the departures for and not the standard designs we receive that dont meet the intent.After using the document for a year to 18 months we may need to revisit how those departuresare looked at and what the standards are for those departures.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: Our review of the departurethey follow the outline of the departureand follow the rules, but we dont particularly find that this is applicable or holds up gooddesigndo we have findings and fact on a departure or is it discretionary and it wont work as adiscussion between the Committee members? It is a little unclear to me.

SARAH SCHAFER: In this instance were looking at Section 3.2.8, Internal Pathw ay Widthsand Designs. It states, Internal pedestrian pathways shall be at least five foot in widthunobstructed walking surfaces . As you get down in the paragraph it reads, Departures will beconsidered where the applicant can successfully demonstrate the reduced width walkway willaccommodate the anticipated demand given on the proposed use location and configuration ofthe property . This is finding we would need to make in order to allow the departure from thefive foot sidewalks.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: Staff would include this in their staff reports?

SARAH SCHAFER: Yes, staff would include this as part of our analysis. For all departuresthere is criteria listed on why you would allow a departure.

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: Is this moving to such a structured set of criteria that it is pick one from column a. and one from column b. and youve got a building? Weve all dealtwith design review where they show you want they want it to look like, it just doesnt work, but

this is one they usepick one. It doesnt seem like that in my review. It seems like this isrobust way to begin this dialogue and we can find the right piece of architecture for this spot.

SARAH SCHAFER: When we initially started with the document we did look at doingsomething very similar to that. Pick three out of the following five to include as part of your

building. I do believe there is a little bit of that in here. However, there is enough breath in theoptions we have given to a property owner or an architect that youre not going to end up withthe same design. I would ask if Mr. Zabala, who was part of our review committee, has anythingfurther on this or do you have concerns with that as part of this document?

COMMITTEE MEMBER ZABALA: I hadnt thought about it to be honest with you. As the

document gets used and as you see it, it will either prove itself to be what you intend it to be or itis going to have to be changed as you go along.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: There are always things like the transparency pieces on the street or youcome up with a sheer wall or something. Then youve got too much glazing and you cant makeenergy counts work. There are going to be some things, but if this is a living document thosethings can be amended?

8/13/2019 01-09-13_drminutes

16/17


SARAH SCHAFER: Correct. I would recommend as part of your motion you suggest to thePlanning & Zoning Commission there be a requirement that within 12-18 months we revisit thedocument s usefulness and possibly process an amendment. Let the Planning & ZoningCommission know you feel this is going to be a changing document and youre willing to look atthis in a year. Similar to what we just talked about there was some concern of too muchspecificity especially in regards to the glazing items. We want glazing between 20 inches andeight feet for 60 percent of the wall plane. Is this too much hardline numbers for a designguidelines document or do you feel this sets a place for the conversation to start and so you canthen move on from there with the design standard? It tells people what it is were ultimatelylooking for and lets them know that a storefront is an important piece for certain areas. This has

been another topic of discussion.

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: Ill struggle wi th a mathematical answer to a quantifiabledesign, but you have to start somewhere. If it is too specific and we get a lot of kickback on itthen you go to a more vague solution and say, The majority of the wall should be instead of 36inches, eight feet .

CHAIRMAN MARSH: As long as youre allowing for departures you still have an avenue

SARAH SCHAFER: For getting them approved until we can get back and get it modified.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: Ive been to places where you can move this over six more inches eventhough Im not module anymore. Things like this where for a couple more inches and youre

just barely making it and youre reading your design

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: Thats the t rouble with a number. If y oure two feetshort and everybody in the room recognizes thats the right spot to end th e glass, but this says

eight feet and not six foot, eight inches.

SARAH SCHAFER: There you could say they ve meant the intent of the overall guideline andyoure comfortable with them moving forward. We have something built in where if it becomesa continuous problem we can go back and fix it.

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: I agree.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: I dont know what to say about this Boise specific piece unless there isa slight narrativ e at the beginning I like the documen t that doesnt have a whole lot of Boisespecific things and let the evolution of our architecture in our town become what it is on its own.

COMMITTEE MEMBER ZABALA: Try to figure out what Boise specific would look like.

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: I think I lived in it once.

CHAIRMAN MARSH: I dont have a problem with the document in that regardbeing toogeneric for anywhere. It really reflects the way we live and what we want as an outcome.

8/13/2019 01-09-13_drminutes

17/17


COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN: Theoretically were living in an era and time where wereenlightened about some of the basic ideas of good design. This document is an updated versionof this thinking and it provides decent framework. It shouldnt matter if this was Portland,Pocatello or Boise. Those good design elements will reflect themselves and do well in all ofthose cities. This is no different. What the difference is here is the context that you put the

bu ilding in. It is in Boise and its not in Pocatello. Youll use that design criteria and thatcontext to make the right decision. We have Boise as a context and well make a decision that ishopefully good design.

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN MOVED TO ACCEPT THE CITYWIDE DESIGNSTANDARDS AND GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDS TO THE PLANNING ANDZONING COMMISSION THEY ESTABLISH A REVIEW PROCESS TO EVALUATETHESE STANDARDS ON AT LEAST A SIX MONTH BASIS AND PREDETERMINEWHO THESE PEOPLE WILL BE SO THEY ARE ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS ANDTHEY WILL WORK WITH STAFF TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AFTER 12 TO18 MONTHS AS TO MODIFICATIONS WHICH WOULD ENHANCE THE CURRENTFUNCTION OF THE DOCUMENT.

COMMITTEE MEMBER ZABALA SECONDED THE MOTION.

ROLL CALL VOTE 3:0. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

MINUTES

December 12, 2012 (Hearing)

December 19, 2012 (Worksession)

COMMITTEE MEMBER ZABALA MOVED TO APPROVE THE WORKSESSIONMINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 AND THE HEARING MINUTES OF DECEMBER19, 2012.

COMMITTEE MEMBER RUDEEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.

Hearing adjourned.

____________________________________James Marsh, ChairmanBoise Design Review Committee

____________________________________Date

01-09-13_drminutes

Documents

Transcript of 01-09-13_drminutes