Architectural Review Board Meeting   5/17/2021

We've got a little bit of a different process going.

Okay, great.

So would one of the Airbnb members like to make a motion to get that done?

I'll second.

Carolyn, can you call the vote?

Mr. Henningsen?

Aye.

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Frank Stoner will be our chairperson for the day and I will turn the meeting over to you.

Are there any disclosures?

Yes, I will need to recuse myself from ARB 2021-42, the Starbucks plan.

Not sure what the number is on that.

Yes.

Would you like me to read those into the record?

Yeah, if you don't mind Margaret, that'd be great.

and I think that's it for all the announcements.

Are there any members of the public present today who want to make comments on items unrelated to the agenda items today?

I do not have anybody with their hand up at this time.

ARB 2021-37, the Green Bar Wawa initial site plan.

We would need a motion from one of the ARB members to do that.

I'll second.

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Mr. Hensington?

Aye.

Thank you.

Are you able to see my PowerPoint slide?

Yep.

I'm happy to try to answer any questions that you have.

I have a question for the applicant, but no questions for you.

Margaret, can you possibly go back to the perspective rendering from 29 heading north?

Sure.

We're looking north.

Are you able to see the slide?

I just wanted.

Okay, would you like me to leave it out?

I think we'll see what the applicant wants to do.

Were there any other questions from ARB members?

Or labeled south elevation.

That's a good question.

Maybe the applicant could shed light on that.

I'd assumed it was because the labels haven't changed, but...

Thank you.

Okay, if the Airbnb members have no additional questions, I think we can move on to the applicant's presentation.

A representative from Wawa.

Are you able to see my screen?

We are.

If we can obviously answer any questions, any additional questions you have.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

but I'll stay here if you got any more questions for me.

So we do need to reduce those heights and fix the lighting plan for you.

I'll show you the entrance there if you want to see that.

Ryan, just to summarize, of the recommendations made, which ones can you guys not achieve?

I don't think offhand that we have a problem with any of these.

I'm not sure it's a huge issue, but I don't know whether it's in there as a recommendation or requirement, but yeah.

That was noted and it was just to add whatever landscaping we can versus make changes to the building.

That's right.

so that's why we haven't gone with large trees but we could certainly put in some shrubs here that you know don't grow up to you know beyond 10 feet or maybe some some kilometer trees so I think we can definitely help with that and we can provide a line of sight that shows you know where the southern the building to the south of us comes into play in terms of the line of sight and when you could you know when this would be black from view 129.

The berm at the rear of the site that's mentioned in the staff report, what is the purpose of that?

So we told Margaret we work with her on that one.

Thanks.

Any other questions for the applicant?

No, I don't have any questions.

OK, well, we'll close that section of the hearing and move to discussion.

Frank, can we ask Carolyn if she knows if there's anyone who's from the.

Carolyn, is there anybody from the public who has a comment or question about this?

I don't have anybody with their hand raised.

Chris, why don't you start?

So thank you.

Chris.

So thank you for the presentation.

So I don't have any other questions or issues with what's been presented.

Can you see the Word document?

Yes.

That would be the only change from what was in the staff report.

Anybody want to make a motion?

We didn't have any amendments, did we, Margaret?

One amendment was that last was item 28, which reads, correct the street names referenced in the architectural elevation drawing titles.

Sorry about that.

So I'll second.

Silver?

Mr. Henningsen?

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks everyone.

The first one on the list is ARB 2021-40, Scott's IDXON final site plan.

Thanks, Frank.

I'd be happy to answer any questions that you all may have.

I don't have any questions.

Thanks, Chris.

We have a representative for the applicant here.

So at that point, I'll turn it over to Mark who will probably talk more about the architecture aspect of it.

Help Scott, and Scott Ram is also with us today to help us through this.

I'm using their services to help me through this, so I'm happy to answer questions if any are needed to be directed to me.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

No, not at this time.

Frank, it's just the two of us.

Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

I didn't know if you'd explored any, you know, any other way to use that blue that would have less of an impact.

Sure.

It's just that amount of blue, you know, on the three prominent sides on the corridor.

We can take it off the back.

Any thoughts there?

What's your thought on the canopy?

And if the front of the existing building was the gray and the addition was a different color, would something like that make a difference?

Are the blue and yellow important because they're trademark colors or are they important for some other reason?

Yes, part of the Napa AutoCare trademark is.

So might be the building that gets another look.

It would set a difficult precedent for future gas stations.

Yeah.

So if we didn't wrap the building entirely, would that meet the intent of the guidelines?

I'm guessing not, but Margaret, you can weigh in on that.

I guess I'm not wrapping the building entirely, could be multiple things, so I don't know.

And then maybe look at something like a smaller stripe on the front of the building only.

Margaret, would we approve a three-color sign like this as a separate application?

easier to accommodate on the added portion of the building, not on the front of the building.

Yeah, it competes with the canopy in a way that again I think feels like too much.

If the canopy was another color like white, would that make a difference or a different color?

I can tell you there's no way that ever would have been proved.

There's did.

OK, thank you.

Frank, any other thoughts on your?

So I think it's really important that this fit into its setting as much as possible architecturally.

Mark, I don't know if that helps at all, but.

And if it is a sign, I understand that would be a different application.

So you're okay with conditional approval that the stripe go away?

Yeah.

Margaret, what,

Can you see the Word document with the 10 items listed?

Yeah.

If the ordinance requires it for that use, then the fence design would need to be coordinated.

And do we know whether the ordinance requires it or not?

We'll get with the planner who's reviewing the lead review on the site plan and we'll get that coordinated.

Mark and Scott, does this condition work for you guys?

Is that the way that would work?

I think the issue here is that chain link is not something that we would approve.

Yeah.

I don't feel like it would need to come back to us over that particular issue.

No, I would be OK if that was handled administratively.

Do you all want to see the color revisions back?

Yes.

Yes.

Do you want to do that in a work session type of situation or as a full review?

I think work session is probably okay.

I think we're kind of there other than this issue.

This would still come back to you in a work session for number one.

That would ensure that it would come back as a work session, just the architecture, is that?

So all the comments that were in the staff report would basically be conditions of final approval, but the architecture and the color would need to come back, would be required to come back for the work session part of that.

OK.

Frank, I don't have any other comments.

I think you would have to move, though.

If a fence is required for vehicles awaiting repair, show a design that is coordinated with the overall development.

I'll second.

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Thank you.

Thanks a lot.

Thanks, everybody.

Item ARB-2021-42, Starbucks 2231 Seminole Lane.

Has the board members been swapped out?

I think we might still be waiting for somebody.

Yeah, I'm here now.

You're good to go.

I'd be happy to try to answer any questions that you all may have.

Thank you, though, for your presentation.

Is there a representative of the applicant who wants to speak?

Can you hear me OK?

Yes, we can.

Martha, do you wanna take over in talking to some of the architectural points?

I don't know, Adam, if you want to add up anything on the proposed building.

Yes, is anybody sharing the deck or elevations?

I can share my screen if that helps.

So unless there is any questions about Starbucks operations at the site or how the store will trade, I would hand it back off to Anna.

Is that showing up?

Yes.

Nothing's changed thus far on these plans.

Is it a wood-like, yeah.

Let me see if I can pull up a better, it is.

Yes, we can see it better on the 3D.

Is that kind of off the table now?

Did you want to go ahead, Martha?

Yes, I was about to tell the board that it's not out of the question, but we want to pursue the approval of the mutual and another presentation and another submission.

Chris, any questions for the applicant?

I don't think it would be visible from the ground.

And also just to circle back the, well, Martha covered the wall, so nevermind.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak to this matter?

Not at this time.

We'll close the public hearing and Chris, what are your thoughts?

To me, I didn't have any concerns that were above what was mentioned in the staff report.

Or Chris?

Can you see my Word document?

Yes.

And from your discussion, it didn't sound like there were any of these 14 items that needed to change.

And I guess that's a question for you.

We feel good about these and don't foresee any any issues addressing all of the recommendations.

All right, I'll move for approval of ARB 2021-42 Starbucks final site plan with the conditions listed in the staff report.

Mr. Henningsen?

Aye.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you all for your presentation.

Thank you, Steph.

The EC guidelines discussion

I don't know if you all want to do that today or do you want to wait until we've got everybody present?

So that's just my opinion.

I agree.

Yeah, I agree as well.

Great, I will put it on the agenda for our next meeting.

We have minutes to approve from the May 3rd meeting.

Just need a motion for approval.

I'll move to approve.

Does anyone want to second the motion?

So I don't know if I should second and then abstain.

Yeah, good point.

You can still do it.

I think they're good.

You could just appreciate the minutes.

They're good reading.

We can also postpone them till the next meeting as well if that makes everyone more comfortable.

After everything we've had, you know, Frank taking over, Chris and I hopping out, Margaret, Chris, everybody doing all their parts.

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Yeah, just too much, too many names.

No, I've known that for years that my last name has probably three or four letters more than it ought to.

I'm so sorry.

You're not the first and you won't be the last.

I think that's it, right?

Does everyone plan to be in attendance?

Yes.

Frank, you can adjourn the meeting.

Thanks everybody.

Thank you.