Follow us on Twitter Follow Us on Facebook

  DRC Home | Committees | Applicants Guide (PDF) | Submittals Checklist (PDF) |Application Form (PDF) | Agendas

Northeast Design Review Case Report

NEORSD EASTERLY WWTP SECURITY BLDG

Back Return to Case List | Start Over | Print Report (PDF format)

Project Information

Northeast Case #  NE 2017-002

Address: 14021 Lakeshore Blvd
Company: RICHARD L. BOWEN + ASSOCIATES INC.
Architect: RICHARD L. BOWEN + ASSOCIATES INC.
Description:

Seeking preliminary approval for the proposed construction of a new security building, parking, landscaping and lighting.

Notes:  

Committee Actions/Submissions

Date: January 24, 2017
Committee: Staff
Action Type: Initial Plan Submission
Conditions/Notes:  
 
Date: January 31, 2017
Committee: Local Design Review Committee
Action Type: Approved with Conditions
Conditions:  

Voting Members Present:

  • B. Chew (2nd)
  • P. Brown (CH)
  • T. Veider (1st)
  • C. Poh
  • N. Reich

 

The project was presented by Robyn Wolf of Richard L Bowen Architects.  Project is presented as part of a larger interior and exterior renovation/update to the site.  Project scope will demolish the existing building to construct a new security guard hous.  The intent is to save as many of the existing trees as possible during the new construction.  There is an existing ornamental fence that will be matched along the new drive.  Material samples were presented today.  The material samples and submitted rendering are the true representation of the colors and finishes selected.  They are proposing a 30 inch aluminum sun-shade above the glass glazing on the front of the security building.

 

Committee Questions, Comments, Concerns:

  • What is the distance from the property line to the security house?  Approx. 85-100ft.
  • How many people will work in the security building?  2 employees
  • Did the team investigate a semi-circular window treatment for security guards to full view as an alternative to the octogonal shape?
  • Will there be any landscaping presented today?  City code requires screening of parking lots and tree plantings within the lot.  The architecture team will revisit the landscaping treatment.
  • How will you handle security of the site during demolition and construction?  The NEORSD will close down the subject entrance and direct traffic to the east and west entrances.
  • Can the team explore another color for the metal panel?  The oyster color as presented may be to light a treatment.  Try investigating a color more similar to the sandstone.
  • Explore picking up the detail of the smoke stake by using a wider horizontal joint and a slimmer vertical joint to give the impression of the art deco style.

 

Councilman Polensek is availabel for questions and comment.  The Councilman asked why the proposed structure is not followiwng the existing art deco look of the rest of the campus.  The architecture team stated that the building is meant for a utilitarian purpose and that they tried to pull the color and materials from the existing campus to inspire the new construction of the security gate.

 

Motion to approve the preliminary development proposal with the conditions to review the joint work of the metal panel, review a darker shade for the metal panels, and return with a landscaping plan for the parking lot.

Date: February 21, 2017
Committee: Staff
Action Type: Revised Plan Submission
Conditions/Notes:  
 
Date: February 28, 2017
Committee: Local Design Review Committee
Action Type: Approved with Conditions
Conditions:  

Voting Members Present

  • B. Chew
  • R.S. Nieswander (1st)
  • N. Reich (2nd)
  • P. Brown (CH)

 

 

The project was presented by Ken Emling and Robyn Wolf of Richard L. Bowen + Associates.  They presented the updates to the color panels and landscaping.  They've maintained the existing oak trees to give a framework for the entrance.  Plant materials provide color, are salt tolerant, and provide balance to the frontage.

 

 

Committee Questions, Concerns, Comments

  • Will trees be installed in the parking lot to meet the code requirement?
  • Who uses this parking lot?
  • Why is there gravel on the western side of the frontage for the landscaping?  For snow piles?
  • Is the monument sign existing?
  • Is the wall existing?
  • Can you provide at least 2 trees in the middle area of the new lot by studying the photometrics?  And possibly providing trees around the perimeter of the exisitng lot.

 

 

Motion to approve final development proposal by all voting members present with the condition that trees are added to the existing and proposed lot.

 
Date: April 7, 2017
Committee: City Planning Commission
Action Type: Approved
Conditions: