Architectural Review Board Meeting   6/7/2021

Well, working but having fun.

A little bit of both.

Great.

Super.

Well, the gang's all here.

It looks like it's one o'clock.

Yes, we're ready.

Well, it's one o'clock and so I'm calling the June 7th, 2021 meeting of the Omaha County Architectural Review Board to order.

This meeting is being held pursuant to and in compliance with ordinance 20-A16, an ordinance to ensure the continuity of government during the COVID disaster.

The quorum is present.

Architectural Review Board members present electronically are Fred Missel, Frank Hancock, Chris Henningsen, Frank Stoner, and myself, Dave Van Der Werf.

Opportunities for the public to access this meeting are posted on the county's website at the county calendar.

The public has real time audio visual access to this meeting over Zoom and real time audio access over telephone.

Both is provided in the lawfully posted meeting notice.

This meeting is being recorded and will be made available on the county's website.

The online meeting is a public record and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

All speakers, when it's your turn to speak, please first state your name for the record.

For everyone participating today, it's good practice to mute your microphone until it's your turn to speak.

For applicants making presentations, note that your presentation is limited to a total of 15 minutes, which you can divide among your team members.

And Carolyn will let us know when the 15 minutes are up.

We'll move to disclosures.

Do any members have anything to disclose today?

No, sir.

Hearing?

No.

No.

Nor do I.

Great.

Thank you.

We have no items on the consent agenda, so we'll move to regular review.

There is one item on the agenda for that today.

Chris Taggart will present that.

Chris, would you present Bemanski Subaru ARB 2021-49?

The application I'm presenting on today is the preliminary review of the renovation plan submitted for Mansi's Subaru building.

The site is located along Route 29 at the intersection with Hilton Heights Road.

ARB has approved a number of applications for the site, including two special use permits in 2003 for outdoor display of vehicles and structured parking, ARB applications in 2003 and 2005 for the original design of the Phase I and Phase II buildings, and 2013 for the renovation of the Phase II building.

A condition of the one the special use permits is that the design of the phase two building shall be compatible with the phase one building as determined by the A review.

To orient you within the site, the phase one building is a larger building with a structure parking on the right side of the site and the smaller building on the left is the phase two building for Subaru.

The existing Subaru building and the phase one building achieve a level of compatibility to the historic architecture through the use of brick as the primary building material.

The renovation to the Subaru building would add a slate icon tower and canopy structure to the east elevation.

Remove the existing slate entrance element on the south elevation and add a new slate icon tower a short distance to the west.

Cover substantial portions of the existing brick and evens with ACM panels and paint the red brick and evens that are to remain gray.

The phase one and phase two buildings are visually connected through the use of entrance elements and the use of red

The forms introduced in the renovation design help break up the length of the entrance quarter facing elevation.

However, the size, position, and general character of the pickup canopy results in a monumental element.

The painting with the red brick sustains for use in ACM panels, and the slate icon towers are design elements that both emphasize the trademark nature of the design and eliminates the compatibility of the Subaru building with the phase one building.

As mentioned earlier, compatibility of the phase one and two buildings is one of the best use permit conditions for the site.

Staff does not believe that the current design of the Subaru building is compatible with the phase one building.

Some options to increase the compatibility for the building design include, but are not limited to, reducing the scale of the pickup canopy structure, reducing the amount of ACM panels used in the design, maintaining the red brick, or using earth tone colors.

Staff offers to follow recommendations on the proposal for the next middle.

Thank you very much, Chris.

Let's see if members have questions for you.

No, I don't have any questions.

Got it.

Thanks.

Thank you, Fred.

Thank you.

Chris, I guess one question.

So I guess the original special use permit said phase two had to match one.

Right.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Good point, Margaret.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

All right.

Thank you, everybody.

My name is Bob Pineo.

Evan Phillips is here with me as well.

This is a preliminary discussion, so we've got a lot to cover.

I hope to meet some or identify some of the criteria that we're working under.

Ideally, what I'm trying to do is we always try to do, this is a subjective,

idea, but we're trying to make better buildings.

And by making better buildings, sometimes a little bit more flexibility helps us to make better buildings.

In this particular case, we're right to the root of the matter, which is this idea of compatibility.

And this is a 20-year-old or so idea that was based on this compatibility issue.

We're also

From our perspective, we're also working with Subaru Corporate that they have a specific brand.

These are all themes that we've covered in the past with Aldi, for example, and Buffalo Wild Wings and things like that.

We're trying to identify a brand.

We're also trying to find a place for it.

We're trying to be as best we can to identify good building components based on

Design and also your guidelines.

So in this particular case, the design problem that we've been faced with is this idea of compatibility of basically one out building, one out parcel building, and then a larger building that's really bifurcated into two uses.

And that's what's going to happen moving forward is it's Subaru, and there's the Honda dealership, and then there's the Chrysler dealership.

and each one of those identities is trying to evolve over time.

So the problem with this, I think that what we're looking for is some latitude with this idea of compatibility, understanding that each three of these businesses is evolving over time and their aesthetics is evolving.

what they're trying to do is evolving, their brand is evolving, the way that they operate is evolving.

So this kind of idea of making it all the same over time is kind of exacerbating the issue of good design, we think, because that's another element.

So for instance, Subaru is the number one candidate here.

It's an out parcel building.

So we're trying to find a rational,

way forward given Subaru's architecture base and what they're trying to do.

Now we're trying to make that compatible or at least relational to the other building.

Now, in the meantime, Honda and Chrysler are both in the middle of redesign for their facade and improvements on the interior will be before you hopefully in the next X amount of

months and Honda has already moved forward with a preliminary idea on what the facade might look like and Chrysler is in that process as well.

So fundamentally what we're asking to talk about is this idea of compatibility and where that makes sense.

Can we get more latitude to make, you know, in specifically the Subaru dealership

It becomes a design problem for Subaru.

Like, is this a good building?

Is it not?

What's the form?

What's the, you know, what's the fit out?

That's an intriguing problem in itself.

But then the overlay of, well, now make it compatible with this older building that's going to change as well.

So basically, that's a hard problem to solve and make good buildings, we think.

So what we're asking for is a general discussion potentially, maybe you can help us figure out that path forward.

We think based on the corridor itself and facade lengths, that there's nothing wrong with an out parcel building that has its own character.

And even the Honda and Chrysler building, the length of that building somewhere in the 340 feet or so, that's a big building.

and the capacity to split it up and to have two different facades.

What is this element of compatibility and is it bringing us better outcomes?

So just to be kind of outrageous about it, Aldi was building facade that was part of a larger structure.

So, you know, fundamentally or conceptually, you wouldn't say, well, Aldi has to be what everything else has to be in that strip mall is a distinction between

a brand and a building.

And this has more to do with the Honda and Chrysler side, but also even more acutely with Subaru, it is an outbuilding.

So is compatibility, what is it?

How do we define it?

What are your objectives?

And is it creating a better design in the end?

That's what we're trying to understand.

What you see before you is basically as far as the Subaru goes,

is the concept of Subaru corporate.

We work with them.

There are a lot of site issues that modify the overall design.

These are elements that they use to brand their business and they have certain differentiators in regards to service and that service is evolving in the last 20 years.

So the whole thing is kind of changing.

This is a form that responds to that change.

So that's embedded in what's in front of you.

Great, thank you very much, Bob.

Are there any other things you'd like to present before we sort of enter into questions with the board members?

Yeah, we have just, at some point, I'd like to see how the discussion goes.

Great, well, and it sounds like in some ways you'd like the format to be a bit of a work session.

And I think we could switch to that.

I don't know, Margaret, is there any problem if we approach it that way?

That sounds like a good way to approach it.

So happy to dive in.

Let's see, do you want me just, I can go around same order, invite members to start the discussion.

I always hate going first.

Well, first of all, Bob, I got to say that this presentation you put together was really excellent.

I thought it really helped kind of set the context and understand the site, the proximities, you know, the aerial views.

I mean, just it was really, really well done.

And I my humble opinion is this is a good example for other applicants to take a look at when they're preparing these kinds of documents.

So thank you for that.

I'm a little bit off balance just because I haven't fully thought through this but I give you some just general thoughts first and then since it's a work session hopefully enjoy the ability to come back for other conversation.

I know this is crazy sounding probably but I'll be honest these two phases to me have always felt almost separate and distinct and I know that they're somewhat tied together and I know there are some similarities

But as you're experiencing them on the entrance corridor, they feel to me to be more independent buildings as opposed to one united phase one and phase two.

Part of that may be because of where the entrances are located.

One's more facing, you know, 29, the entrance corridor.

One's really facing the Walmart parking lot.

and you know the other there's a dedicated entrance that takes you right into the Honda dealer and not to the other one so there are a lot of different contributing pieces that to me just make me feel sort of subjective subjectively like these are two separate buildings so when I when I saw the staff report and I appreciate the reminder that they needed to be compatible

Going back to the wording, I think that was the right, that's the right term, right, that it needed to be compatible.

Not that it needed to match or that it needed to, you know, fill in the blank, but compatibility was the key focus.

So for me, compatibility could be different materials.

It doesn't have to be the same.

I think size and scale and, you know, all of those are important things that relate to compatibility.

And I'm rambling here, but

Generally speaking, I'd like to hear what everyone else says in terms of the actual building itself, but having looked at some of the work that was done on Pantops and some other areas, there are some similarities to bringing this kind of dealership into kind of more current thinking from a design standpoint, a little fresher and cleaner.

So I also, just one other thing on the landscape piece,

I did look at the landscape plan that you all submitted.

This is the one from Water Street.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see it.

It wasn't as clear in those documents as figure one in the staff report was.

I'm not sure if those are the same.

I'm not asking that well.

So I think I can answer that.

So I just got off the phone with Alan Franklin.

He was going to try to make it here.

By and large, we're leaving the existing plant material as is.

So there was this overlay, you know, the original design and basically we are obviously changing some things when the building mask gets bigger and, but basically we're trying to replace in kind.

We're not doing much more than what was there.

And when we change something, we put it back as close as we can.

Cause the one thing that, and part of the reason I'm asking is that I think it's slide number 19 or

Page number 19 of your submittal showed it much more open in front of the dealership.

No.

Okay.

No, I have a feeling that was, I don't know exactly why that would be that way, but we weren't touching, especially in that area.

Got it.

I can maybe just add a little clarity, hopefully, to that topic while we're on it.

The existing condition on site now isn't exactly matching the approved plan.

So there appear to be at least a few missing and that's contributing to the open appearance on the Hilton Heights Road side and

The landscape plan in the current submittal doesn't really clearly show that everything that's existing is to remain or everything that was previously approved is to remain.

Got it.

That makes sense.

Thank you, Margaret.

Great.

Thank you for starting the discussion, Fred.

Yeah, thanks, Bob.

Great presentation.

I do have one question related to the other building.

If the special use permit applied to this second phase or whatever we're calling it, is there any requirement on the first, that the first phase be compatible with the second phase or could you go essentially redevelop phase one without regard to what's in phase two?

Well, Bob, I think you raised some interesting questions about what it means to be compatible and the Lidl example is a good one or the Aldi example.

The other one that comes to mind is the,

is the Riot Hill Shopping Center, that kind of redo.

And I think in a retail context, this idea that we need to use the same brick or the same materials, I have a problem with only because I think it increases mass and I think a lot of what we really want to do is try to break down particularly these larger masses into

Things that feel like they have their own independent identity, particularly for retail.

So if in fact phase one has no obligation to be compatible with phase two, to me that whole discussion is not really worthy of

of a lot of debate in the context of this building because if you put red brick on this building, there's nothing to stop the second building from doing essentially what you're doing to this building.

I don't think I have an issue with what you guys are trying to do.

To Fred's point, it's happening.

It happened with Ford, it happened with Mazda, it happened with, you know, I mean, everybody in the auto business is trying to modernize.

And I think the architecture of what you've shown us is clean, it's modern, it's effective in achieving some measure of branding.

and I know that's important.

And it, I guess, doesn't bother me in the context of this.

Great, thank you, Frank.

Thanks, Frank.

Thanks, Bob.

I agree with Fred and Frank.

It's a great package.

I feel like too, and architecturally,

You know, you're doing all the things that the guidelines ask for or stipulate.

And I feel like there's so many successful moves in this design that, you know, maybe we should be focused on that, but thinking about just the improvements to the east elevation and really that corridor frontage is, I think, a vast improvement over what's there now.

Kind of how you enter into the building, you know, that southern elevation or that corner, I think is a big improvement.

So I just kept looking at the kind of before elevations.

It was almost like you'd come to the ARB with something very basic and we'd work through it and we kind of evolved it.

Exactly.

But so anyway, I, you know, I appreciate it.

I think it's, I think it's some really nice, you know, architectural interventions.

And as far as the initial site plan, you know, I think that I have no issue with that.

I think the original site plan and the figure one landscape plan that Fred mentioned is a great plan.

It's super dense.

I mean, if you look at

All the plantings integrated into a car dealership, you know, it's very successful from that standpoint.

And those are a lot of times the things we're up against is the display feature or the display idea versus the frontage landscape requirements.

And I feel like that's achieved here.

So.

And then on to the compatibility piece, you know, ultimately, I think it's up to us

and having this information that phase one is under development, I think kind of helps us make this decision.

Yeah, and I do, I think back to Fred's original comment of phase one, phase two is a little confusing that they're definitely separate buildings and pretty distinct if they didn't share

and ownership, I don't know, you think about it differently.

You think contextually and say, what are your neighbors doing?

How does this fit in with other buildings along the corridor?

But you wouldn't call for it to be the exact same materials or the exact same elements.

Great, thank you, Frank.

Chris, what would you add?

I guess I had really been struggling with this one because I personally think it's really handsome.

And actually, I agree with everything that's been said up until now.

However, I guess the struggle I was having was that I can't disagree with

The staff reports assessment that it's highly branded.

So that's kind of where the struggle was.

I'll say that there was no individual part of

The proposal that was problematic, in my opinion, I think it was very well put together.

So it's really just the branding thing and kind of what I'm hearing from my colleagues is that that's kind of not as much of an issue as

as I thought it was going to be.

So I'm supportive of what I saw.

Thank you, Chris, and thank you everyone for your comments.

Bob, I agree with everybody who said it's a strong presentation.

I think you all consistently set the mark for really clear descriptions of the projects that are very helpful in understanding them, so thank you.

And I think, you know, I agree with what Fred and others have said that, you know,

Building seemed quite distinct and the complex is quite large and anticipating future phase one returning.

Personally, I think that facade could stand to be broken down a bit in scale and creating more diversity.

So that seems good.

I think from my perspective, the building as you've designed it in terms of massing and scale is perfectly compatible and is successful.

Really works well.

I think I appreciate Chris's comments about branding.

Certainly the branding is prominent.

I think if I'm concerned about branding, it's more perhaps in the color scheme and not that white can't be compatible with

with Brick, but that it is a bit stark.

And I appreciated y'all including the many precedents of Malloy and Flow and both the Mazda and the VW.

And I guess I would offer, I do think that there are some real subtlety and nuance in those in terms of how they've taken corporate brands and still applied perhaps more brick work to bring

sort of the texture of the county's architectural fabric to those projects, incorporating possibly stone or simulated stone panels that bring in more texture and a connection to some of the natural materials that are prevalent in the broader architecture of our county.

So I think

You know, from my own personal perspective, would encourage and appreciate maybe looking at ways to reduce the amount of overall metal panel and ways to bring in maybe elements that reflect more of the texture and natural materials in the county.

Not that there shouldn't be any metal panel.

Clearly, that's a prominent feature in many car dealerships.

And then I think even at a really subtle tectonic level, looking at how that metal panel is articulated in some buildings, you know,

It looks almost like a stacked panel of some structural element.

I think in the current articulation, there are sort of openings cut into what feels like an overall wrapper.

I mean, certainly both approaches are valid.

But I think as you look at developing the metal panel language, there are lots of good precedents in your work and others for how to handle that material.

Well, I guess we've made it around the horn, but that could just be the beginning of the discussion.

No, this has been very helpful.

This sounds a little canned, but our objective is to make beautiful buildings that are scaled and appropriate, and we're not trying to buck the system.

We do, in regards to branding, there are specific things that we're being asked to present that are part of a national, you know, a national identity, let's say.

In the case of Albee, for example, I was amazed by

That was kind of off the shelf.

We did modify it a little bit, but good design is good design.

Sometimes national brands don't have good design.

In this particular case, we thought that there was a lot that was right out of the box, good design.

It happens to be branded, but that doesn't mean that there isn't good architecture ideology behind it, breakdown of mass and all those kinds of things.

So this was really our

coming out dance to see what you felt and how we could move, you know, what the rules of engagement, let's say, and what are we trying to achieve?

So I think you've given us a lot to digest and understand and react to.

It was the idea of compatibility to something else, which is changing and how you do that over time.

You know, do you do one thing and you say, well, this is compatible to this other thing, but that thing's changing, but we'll do that first and we'll kind of muddle our way through it and then we'll go back to the first.

It was a mental somersault that we couldn't solve.

in our opinion very well given the design problem.

So it seemed like that issue was more of a hindrance than actually creating better results.

So I think you've given us a lot of clarity on that.

If you wanted to, now that we have that kind of context a little bit better, is there any discussion relative to the more specific issues that staff has brought up in regards to like

the mass on the corner there where this is part of Subaru's customer experience.

There's a place where you go pick up your car and they give you the keys and it's a ceremonial aspect of it.

That's what that covered porch is like, why it's that way.

One of the issues that we wanted to show you in our book, it's a pretty, that element is highlighted, but that's not from the entrance corridor.

you know, almost an elevated view from the side, from the driveway area.

We do have other, so I wanted to talk generally about that.

You've already talked to us about panels, so we'll work on that materiality.

The landscaping just will firm that up, but basically we're trying to leave it as is.

And when we affect it, we put it back in kind or as close as we can.

So I wouldn't mind just to,

Bob, I do have one question about finishes, exterior finishes.

When I look at the rendering, the color seems very different than the color that's shown below.

That's a great question.

I am on page 28.

Oh, I see, yes.

So this, believe it or not, was part of this idea of trying to keep things consistent with the rest of it.

So we painted the brick.

There's an ethos band there already, I believe.

So we were trying to look at everything.

I think the least successful part maybe is the part right on that, you know, the three in one.

So that was our try being compatible.

Like, yeah, we have saw the brick, but it doesn't look good to have, you know, red brick in that particular area.

It seemed like an anomaly based on what Subaru's aesthetic was.

So there, and there's part of that, which is the ethos band.

It's kind of a mob, you know, the different color didn't meet the tone of what Subaru was trying to do.

It's a good question, Frank.

I have it sometimes depending on the light quality and where we shine it.

Our renderings tend to maybe bleed out particular materials.

We'll be much more definitive about that so I can't answer that whether it's

I think the intention is that those two things look much more similar because to bring a darker band there would be highlighting something that isn't really that much of a design element.

It would distract it from the left-hand version of the entrance.

So I think to answer your question directly, three would be more like the pant.

More like two.

More like two.

Yeah, OK.

and you know just programmatically that whole wing is a service bay you know so it's disassociated you know it's a little it's raised up on a plinth there's not much activity happening there or people approaching the building on that side.

Gotcha, thanks.

Any particular comments?

Margaret, can I share the screen?

Let's go with this one.

So what we're trying to show here is what looked like a primary piece with this covering where you receive your car from the entrance corridor is less of a thing than it would be from looking at it as we wanted to include in our package just so everybody could understand what it looked like formally.

But from the front facade, we feel that it plays quite nicely with

a series of boxes and we tried to break down the scale of that to a certain degree while making it part of the design problem is that it is an element that's in a primary location.

But effectively it doesn't show that much relative to either the entrance corridor or right as you make that entrance to Hilltop.

Hilton.

Hilton, sorry.

Sorry, one question.

These new images are helpful.

So it looks like, okay, I think you just answered my question by zooming in.

Or is there a step back?

Okay, there's no step back.

We do drop the mass relative.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah, it's a subtlety.

Even if it's, you know, just a slight step back, I'm just looking at it in comparison to the rest of the mass of the building.

Yeah.

Because it goes across wherever the roof line breaks.

Yeah.

We could even even something as subtle as that.

Yeah.

You know, yeah.

Great suggestion.

OK.

Yeah, I think it would be good if we can get some clarity on an aspect of the compatibility issue.

The condition of the special use permit requires that there be compatibility, and I've heard sort of two different takes on this.

One, that maybe the compatibility really isn't necessary, and if that's what the board thinks, then that would be good to know because the applicant could ask to amend the special use permit to remove that condition, and that could

Clean up things for the future, any other compatibility issues between two and one or phase one and phase two.

If the board thinks compatibility is still required, and it sounds like everyone thinks there is still a level of compatibility with what's being proposed, it would be helpful just to

Thank you, Margaret.

Great questions and options.

I guess we'll just go around the horn again.

Fred, do you want to take the whole position?

I actually just for kicks looked up the official definition of compatibility.

It's a state in which two things are able to exist or occur together without problems or conflict.

You know, that's a pretty broad definition.

And in my mind, that really, as I said, I think earlier, doesn't necessarily have to mean they're the same materials.

I think it's, you know, when you see the two, are the scales compatible?

Are the forms, you know, sort of

correct in their proportions?

Is there thoughtfulness in design detailing?

You know, I think all of those things help to contribute to compatibility.

I would agree with what Fred's just said.

I think compatibility doesn't have to mean that the materials are the same or even similar.

It just means that the two buildings need to fit

feel appropriate in their place.

And I think given the high likelihood that phase two, the Honda Chrysler dealership is going to change maybe soon.

I just don't think it should be a major consideration.

And I don't think...

I'd have a hard time pointing to specific architectural items that make it compatible, I guess, unless I could see the two together.

And as I look through the package, it's kind of hard.

I can't say that I see them together in a way that makes it easy for me to tell you what those items are that would, in my mind, make them compatible.

Not at all.

And I mean, to Margaret's point, she makes a good one about is it really even necessary to leave it in the requirement for the site?

I guess there's an extent to which

You know, we're charged with creating or seeing the projects support, you know, good order and cohesion in the county.

And, you know, that as an overall thing may cover enough that we don't need it in this.

I don't really have anything to add.

I agree with what Fred laid out of, hey, there's a lot

There's many ways to describe or demonstrate compatibility, and it's not red brick.

I don't know.

If you look at the Honda building, it kind of reads like a strip mall.

This building looks like a car dealership, which there's that honesty.

Thank you.

Yeah, I agree with what's been said.

I think by that definition of compatibility, it is compatible with what's there in terms of massing and scale, color.

I can't point to anything that's incompatible.

Obviously, we don't know what

what the changes to the phase one building are going to be.

So Margaret, I appreciate your thinking outside of the box.

Certainly I would support removing that requirement if the applicant or others thought it was helpful.

I do think that compatibility can be something that we're looking to achieve just through our general approach to the guidelines.

And I think, as Fred pointed out, it's a very broad definition.

For my own personal take, I think this building could be more compatible with what is there in terms of color and material.

Okay.

Margaret, I may be misunderstanding the

Yes, but I'm just sort of trying to think ahead.

And if there is another phase one, then not being compatible with phase two, or do we have to, as the buildings continue to change and be renovated in the future, just avoid that.

Yeah, that makes sense.

The only other issue I just would like to be sure we're clear on is the degree

sort of the level of the trademark design.

I'm a little concerned how, I think it seems to staff that the level of the trademark is pretty high with this design.

And I know that some of the aspects of this design may be similar to other dealerships that the ARB has approved renovations for

But I start to just want to know how other trademark designs might come in and aren't dealerships because I can say, well, they're all trademarks.

This was approved as a fairly heavy trademark.

Thank you, Margaret.

I invite others to comment.

I do think maybe the branded color at the coping of the building is maybe one step further than we've seen many other projects go.

But let's see, invite other members.

I agree, Dave.

I mean, if you look at the existing building, it has about the same number of branded elements.

I agree, I think that strip across the top is what kind of really sets it off.

So maybe there's something you could look at there.

Yeah, I'm just looking at these other dealerships that are in the package.

And I don't know, I'm not sure I find this any more highly branded than the other images I'm looking at.

Other than maybe the blue coping, although I think the,

If the blue coping was gray coping, you know, that'd probably be all right too.

I don't know.

I just, I have a hard time getting too agitated about it.

Certainly there's a lot of writing on the wall and that's a signage issue and you know maybe the scale is too big or there are too many signs or I don't know whether the sign package as presented here meets our requirements or not and that's kind of a separate issue.

Great.

Yeah, I guess that's kind of when

When I made my initial statement, that's kind of what I was struggling with.

You know, it to me looks highly branded.

Now, I think Frank just made a good point.

I mean, a lot of the other dealerships around are equally so to the same extent.

So I,

Personally, I like what I see in terms of the proposal, but at the same time, it does look like a lot of the other Subaru corporate examples that were given in the package.

So I just have, and it's not really a problem, but I really am acknowledging

what staff was pointing out in their report.

Thank you, Chris.

So here's how my train of thought went.

I was looking at, again, these really useful images, and I was looking at page eight, and it shows Flow Mazda, Flow Audi, etc.

From what I can tell of those images, of those images, the Umansky Toyota has a similar red stripe matching the Toyota logo, but it's not across the top of the building, it's actually below the building.

and then I think that the signage is, from what I can tell again, it's very small but it appears that the, oh thanks, now I see you sharing your screen.

It appears that the Umanski word, the signage is actually a different color, it's not the red, to try to tone down a little bit of the branding perhaps.

So then, and just kind of moving forward, you know, none of the other buildings seem to have the stripes, then I went to page nine, the existing conditions,

and was interested in seeing, it looks like the existing building has a similar treatment across the top.

Is that a blue stripe that goes around the building now?

And if so, is that, it is.

And so I wondered if what we're seeing in the rendering is actually a much bluer blue, like a much lighter blue, more like, you know,

I don't know, like Margaret's blouse or Chris's shirt.

That's different than what is actually going to show up.

And if it's a much richer, darker blue, then that would really be there.

I don't know.

And then the last thing I'll say, if any of this is helpful at all, is on page 13 of the proposal that I think Frank Stoner referred to,

You were looking at those images.

I was intrigued by the upper right image where the Subaru logo is blue.

There's a thin line of blue that surrounds the top of the cornice.

But the rest of the letters and the wording are a much sort of more subdued, looks like gray or silver, that help to sort of bring the brand down just a little bit.

And I wonder if that's a way we could head.

Just a thought.

That's a great idea.

Thank you, Fred, for pointing to all those good observations and the materials.

Yeah, I agree.

It seems like the key issue that makes the branding footprint kind of expand is when the text and the logo and the coping all match, it feels like it sort of takes over the whole building.

But to the extent the coping can be different than the branding or the branding different than the coping, that would, for me, start to break that down better.

Well, thank you so much.

I don't think we could have asked for more clarity from you

Just really appreciate this work session and being able to kind of talk to some of these issues.

So really, really thankful for all your time.

And thank you for a good presentation.

Thank you, members, for a good discussion.

Thank you, Margaret.

Sure.

Great.

Share my screen.

Yes.

So I think the comment number one requires

read the proposed design for the phase two building is not compatible with the phase one building.

Clearly, I think you all want that sentence removed.

It goes on to say revise the proposal to provide a design that maintains a connection to the historic architecture of the area and compatibility with the phase one building options included, but are not limited to.

I've struck out reducing the size scale of the structure and I've taken out maintaining the red brick left in reducing the amount of ACM panel

That works for me.

Yeah, fair enough.

Yeah, no, I think that's right, Fred.

So back to sentence two, it seems like we're not really asking them to provide a new design that maintains a connection to the historic architectural area, architecture of the area and compatibility with phase one building.

Yeah, well, my thought there is I think that's right.

I think it sort of does ground it.

Frank, I don't know, I'm wondering if, you know,

The connection to the historic architecture of the area could be, to me, that's different than compatibility with the phase one building.

Yeah, no, I get that.

I just don't, I didn't hear anybody suggesting that they revise the architecture of the building.

People seem comfortable with the scale.

I got you, yeah.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

Yeah, I would.

I think to your point,

I think that's number 10 on here.

I wonder if it's okay to... Is it?

Okay.

Oh, yeah.

And then actually, I guess one issue I forgot to ask about, and maybe this is a question for Frank Hancock.

I may be misremembering the landscape at this site, but in my mind's eye, I think that a lot of the plantings have been sort of topiary.

Okay, thank you, so it's addressed through that, that sounds good.

Do any members have any other suggested revisions?

Great.

I'm sorry.

So that list of comments is this was a preliminary review.

So just a list of comments for the next submittal.

But just for the record, I think it would be good to have a motion regarding the compatibility issue.

Is there a member willing to make the motion?

I'll make the motion.

Second.

I'll second.

Yes.

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Mr. Van Der Werf?

Aye.

Mr. Missel?

Great.

Thank you very much, everyone.

Thank you, Margaret.

Thank you, Chris.

Thank you, Bob and Evan.

Thank you, Chris.

Thank you, Margaret.

Thank you.

Everybody, for your time.

Thanks, guys.

Before we move on, I'm so sorry I forgot to mention this at the top of the meeting, but I have to leave the meeting now.

I have to get to a site visit.

Quite all right.

Thank you.

And I look forward to watching the recording, because it is definitely being recorded.

So we'll be up to speed at the next meeting.

Thank you.

All right, we don't have any work sessions other than the one we just completed on the agenda.

So in other business, there's one other business item, a discussion on the draft outline for one-pagers for the entrance corridor guidelines.

Sure.

I'm going to just share my screen.

I don't have a formal presentation.

I hope by this point that everyone's had a chance to look at that outline.

This would be just an outline of the information that we'd like to see included in these things that we're now calling one-pagers or the addendums to the guidelines for each of the corridors or for each segment of the corridors.

Did everyone have an opportunity to take a look at the outline?

So I would just say, does anyone have

I had a thought, actually.

In a way, every project that is approved by the ARB is a precedent, whether

kind of good, bad, or ugly or whether this current board would endorse that approval.

I think it would be helpful just to have a list of every ARB approved project that is on that card or just because we talk about kind of pre,

EC projects versus projects that have been approved.

I think even kind of beyond the notable examples that we would want to point to as something to be emulated, I think there would be some usefulness and just

Could I ask, Chris, when you say a list, are you envisioning like a

Yeah, I guess I hadn't gotten that far.

Maybe even just like a list of the addresses.

And I don't even know if that's, I mean, I'm assuming that there are, you know,

records, but I don't know if it would be easily like cross referenced in a way that it would be an easy list to compile.

Yeah, we could certainly we could, I mean, it's easy to run a report that lists A or B applications that are in the system by parcel.

And that I'm wondering how

How helpful that will be to, if somebody looks through that list, I'm just wondering if that's the most useful way to present that information.

But we can think on that and see what, I'm just thinking if there's some graphic way to do it that might be, might make it easier to use.

Yeah, I wonder if that gets woven into an applicant's, you know, stepping back, I assume these one-pagers will be available to an applicant who might have a request or, you know, be thinking about applying for a building on the site, right, or on the corridor.

So maybe once that application occurs,

and they have a location for that building, something that Chris is talking about in adjacencies, you know, that might be able to say that, you know, you're next to something that was never reviewed and approved by the ARB, so don't go looking there for precedent, right?

Or you're in the middle of this planned community with signed guidelines out the wazoo that you need to be aware of and it's been regulated by the

I think on, Margaret, on number two, B.C., Architectural Characteristics, which says images of local historic buildings.

The only other thing I'm wondering about under character of corridor segment is whether it would be worth having some statement of the sort of general uses on the corridor.

And again, I'm thinking back to the Avon Street extended conversation

Just because there's, I think context is important and if the historical use patterns on the corridor are consistent with the goals of the county, the current goals of the county, and those call for primarily a warehouse district, then it'd be helpful to know that because we might apply different standards

Okay.

Yeah, something like that.

Okay.

And Frank made me think of this.

I wonder under predominant landscape characteristics, maybe this falls under patterns of organized site development and layout.

But there's the natural landscape features characteristic in vegetation, right?

But then there's also the more structured built

Landscape features, like street trees and those kinds of things.

I think it might be helpful to, if we're calling out natural landscape features, to also call out structure.

That's not the right word, maybe.

Margaret, a quick question about just a hypothetical that could easily come up in connection with say the Places 29, the new Places 29 plan, where we're now reviewing an application that happens to be on the 29 corridor, but in fact, its orientation is to another street, an internal street that the county's now prioritized as sort of the

The focus, how would we review that?

And would that be an important consideration as well as we look at specific segments of corridors, and I'm thinking particularly 29, because it's gonna be an issue.

You're gonna have buildings that no longer orient to 29.

Right, that's a really good point.

and we definitely will need to take that into consideration when we get to 29.

If it's a project that falls within the small area plan and it's form-based code, then that's got its whole review and so that issue would be taken care of with that form-based code review.

But outside of that, yeah, it's something we're gonna need to address

and so I don't have complete answers for you right now.

Any other suggestions?

Margaret, thank you very much.

Let's see.

Sharon, can you see that we're back in,

So now that we have our outline, we'd like to figure out what our next steps are.

We have a couple of questions here maybe to help us figure out what those steps are.

So I'm wondering what role each of the ARB members would like to continue to play in compiling that information that we've just

settled on in the outlines, and are we going to sort of do a test run on one corridor before everybody jumps in on everything, or are we going to do multiple, do we want to try to do multiple corridors at one time, and is everyone okay with compiling information before we have the design of the format finalized?

as I mentioned a few weeks back.

We do have a staff member coming on board to help with some of the graphics related to that.

Well certainly I think from my own perspective it would be useful to compile it while the recent corridors we've looked at are a little fresher in our minds and at least personally I'm speaking for myself I'd be happy to help compile the information I think in terms of

The things we talked about today in terms of zoning and historic use and previously approved elements that might be helpful to have a staff member's assistance with but in terms of other categories would be happy to do that.

Be very interested to hear what others have to say.

I might propose that we start with 250 West because it consists of many segments and see if we could maybe divide the segments and give that one a go as the first step and then

We don't have funding for an intern at the moment.

Isn't there a class over in the architecture school, Fred, that could

Yeah.

I mean, I don't know if there's a class that could, but I mean, that's where all the good interns come from.

Yeah.

We had two turn us down this year.

So it's more about finding them than having to work.

Well, I agree with Dade.

I think 250 is a good corridor to start with.

Since there are a lot of different sections, and it would allow us to kind of work through the format on a fairly complicated corridor.

Happy to help compile information.

I think the

I don't know whether it would be more helpful for you, Margaret, over time for us to migrate to like a single PowerPoint kind of format that you guys could then easily take and drop into or make use of.

But let us know and I'm sure we can all start gravitating toward a single kind of format.

Yeah, I agree.

I think tackling, one, is a good way to kind of iron out a lot of details rather than have us go in different directions and maybe

I'll try to be more constructive than just offering someone else to hire an intern

I agree with the approach to sort of focusing in on this, you know, and looking at the outline too, I think a lot of what's been, a lot of what we've done collectively over the last few months, I think is already done.

In other words, you know, some of it like identify or see or identify significant historic sites, landmarks, buildings, we kind of did that, right?

We kind of outlined

Key elements of orderly and attentive development and how they contribute to the overall coherence.

So I think there's some things that we can fill in and then maybe some other things like a map of each corridor and maybe a two sentence history, those kinds of things that the staff person you just mentioned, Margaret, might be able to sort of help build.

I think many of those graphics to your point are already done.

I mean, Dade, when he did his, he had a map of those different segments of the core.

Well, yeah.

I guess, yeah.

Because you're the one most challenged, I think, with the support.

I don't know.

Yeah well I mean I think we could jump but you know I'm totally prepared to jump on whatever, but I agree I think sooner the better.

I think doing one corridor or maybe even one segment of one corridor first just to try to get it together and see how that works would be helpful just to see what gaps there really are.

Looking back at the outline, the images, your photographs, actual photographs, current day photographs, rather than pulling images from Street View, Google Street View,

That can be a time-consuming thing.

That could be something that would be helpful if you all are able to do some of that.

And then just finding a way to get that additional information that will be coming in to see what format we need it in so we don't have to change it up.

I think once we get one

Segment, all the information for one segment, I think we'll have a better idea of how quickly we can move through it.

Yeah, I think it makes sense to do that.

I don't know my propose.

I know, at least for me personally, I don't really have any extra time in June, but could probably propose that we aim, at least for myself, to compile things by the end of July.

I don't know about new photography.

I guess as an interim step, I might ask whether maybe we could identify those

existing properties that aren't yet documented in Street View and maybe limiting any additional photography to elements that maybe aren't captured in what we've been able to get from those open sources.

Yeah, I may reverse my earlier statement.

Would it make more sense to do a quarter that's easier because 250 has so many different segments?

Right.

Like 20 south?

Now we could start with that one.

OK, why don't we say that then?

Why don't we start with one question.

Wonderful.

Great.

Great.

Super.

Thank you, Margaret.

Anything else before we?

Great.

Really appreciate your and everybody's contributions to this effort.

So let's see.

The last item today, I think, is approval of minutes for May 17th, 2021.

I think Fred and I were both absent, so we'll be recused.

I'll second.

Thank you.

Mr. Stoner.

Aye.

Sorry.

Abstain.

But does that mean we don't have a majority?

Two to two, yeah.

And Mr. Missel?

Aye.

Thanks.

Okay, thank you.

Those were very good minutes.

Is everybody planning to attend?

Unfortunately, we'll be out of town

Thanks.

Or fortunately, I hope it's fortunate.

Margaret, do you ever see us going back to a live meeting?

I was wondering that.

Yeah, we don't have a specific date yet.

I think that we will probably be continuing to meet virtually through the summer.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's very convenient.

Ah, right.

This is almost more FOIA-able than... Yeah.

One's not shopping.

I think you just created a new word, Dave.

Toyable.

Toyable, yes.

Thank you.

Well, thank you, everybody, for your time today.

There will be no further items.

We will adjourn.

Great.

All right.

Take care, everyone.