CITY OF SNOHOMISH
Founded 1859, Incorporated 1890
116 UNION AVENUE  SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON 98290  TEL (360) 568-3115 FAX (360) 568-1375
NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
In the
Postmaster Conference Room
Snohomish City Hall
116 Union Avenue
WEDNESDAY
September 10, 2014
7:00 PM
AGENDA
7:00
1.
CALL TO ORDER: Roll Call
7:05
2.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comment on items not on the agenda.
7:10
3.
APPROVE the minutes of the August 13, 2014, regular meeting.
7:15
4.
ACTION ITEMS
DRB File: 13-28-DRB (P. 1)
Applicant: Dean Broome
Proposed: Rear addition and roofline modification
Location: 1116 Second Street
1)
2)
3)
4)
7:45
8:45
Staff presentation
Comments from applicant
Public Comment
DRB Discussion
5.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
a.
DESIGN STANDARDS UPDATE (P. 17) Draft language for Fences, Walls,
and Railings
b.
INDIVIDUAL DESIGN REVIEWS (P. 24) Staff summary of individual
member reviews from the preceding month.
6.
ADJOURN
NEXT MEETING: The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 8, 2014, at
7:00 p.m. in the Postmaster Conference Room, Snohomish City Hall, 116 Union Avenue.
CITY OF SNOHOMISH
Founded 1859, Incorporated 1890
116 UNION AVENUE · SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON 98290 · TEL (360) 568-3115 FAX (360) 568-1375
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
Snohomish City Hall
116 Union Avenue
Postmaster Conference Room
August 13, 2014
7:00 p.m.
1.
CALL TO ORDER – 7:00 pm
Members Present:
Darcy Mertz Krewson, Chair
Ed Poquette
Phillip Baldwin
Rolf Rautenberg
Joan Robinett Wilson
Staff Present:
Brooke Eidem, Associate Planner
Lori Khile, Office Assistant
Others Present:
Andy Papadatos
Bob Hart
2.
PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments on items not on the agenda.
3.
APPROVE minutes of July 9, 2014
Mr. Poquette moved to approve the minutes of July 9, 2014 as written. Mr. Baldwin seconded
the motion. The motion passed 3-0.
4.
ACTION ITEMS
a.
DRB File: 14-03-DRB
Applicant: Andy Papadatos
Proposed: Kinetic sculpture
Location: 101 Union Avenue
Ms. Eidem presented the proposal for a kinetic art sculpture in the courtyard of the First and
Union Kitchen. The sculpture will be a baker standing at a table with a rolling pin. The arms
will move back and forth as if rolling dough. The body of the sculpture will be
approximately ten feet tall, constructed of clear coated metal, with a wooden rolling pin and a
metal table on a poured concrete base. The body will be oriented toward Union Avenue.
Three cast aluminum spotlights are proposed on the building eaves to illuminate the statue
from above. Additionally, the applicant is requesting approval of exterior lighting to
illuminate five existing building signs on the site. Extruded aluminum fixtures with straight
Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes
Page 1
August 13, 2014
extension poles are proposed. The lights will be installed below the signs, directed upward
toward the building.
Mr. Papadatos stated that the actual final angle of the sculpture may differ depending on how
it fits and looks once it is brought to the site. There is also a plan to put a fence around the
sculpture for safety reasons. There will be no proximity sensors; instead a pressure sensor
will be installed which will stop the movement in case the sculpture is touched. The finish
on the sculpture will be a clear coat with a flattening agent to keep it from being too shiny. It
will be made of steel, and the final color will be varying shades of brown. Spot LED bulbs
will be used instead of halogen as previously stated. Mr. Papadatos will explore the options
available for fixture types and try to match the style of lights that are already on the building.
The rolling pin is the only wood on the sculpture. The table will be five feet tall and
approximately 52 inches wide. It will be bench shaped rather than square, and have an apron
one foot deep so the mechanism will not be visible. It will look like a traditional bakers rack.
Boardmembers agreed that the sculpture will bring added interest to the intersection at First
Street and Union Avenue. Mr. Papadatos hopes it will take the focus off of the large amount
of stucco on the building. Mr. Rautenberg suggested adding a dimmer switch to the lighting
so it can be adjusted as needed. The sculpture will not run 24 hours per day. Ms. Krewson
stated that fixture type, including the length of the arms and the angle at which they are
mounted, must be a primary focus to stay within the standards. Mr. Poquette moved to
recommend approval of the proposal, with the recommendation that a dimmer is considered
for the spot lights. The external lighting for the existing signage is appropriate as proposed,
but a style that matches the existing lights should be considered. Mr. Baldwin seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
b.
DRB File: 13-29-DRB
Applicant: Bob Hart
Proposed: Modification to eastern entry
Location: 502 First Street
Ms. Eidem stated that the overall site proposal for the mixed use development on the corner of
First Street and Willow Avenue was approved by the Board in March and is currently in review
for issuance of a building permit. Mr. Hart is proposing a revision to the eastern façade of the
building facing Willow Avenue, to accommodate a third commercial unit on the ground floor, as
one of the apartments is being reconfigured for office use. The applicant is proposing to replace
two vertically oriented, single hung windows on the first floor with a glazed storefront door and
double hung window. A metal canopy is proposed over the door and window to match the
commercial storefronts on the First Street façade. Large porcelain tiles are proposed below the
window line.
Mr. Hart stated that the unit was originally going to be residential, but due to density issues,
it will now be commercial. Landscaping will be similar to the original proposal, only slightly
modified to allow for the additional entrance. Ms. Krewson confirmed that the entrances are
still ADA accessible.
Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes
Page 2
August 13, 2014
The Board agreed that the building style is consistent with applicable standards and is an
improvement to the previous design, adding more interest to the Willow Avenue façade. Mr.
Rautenberg moved to approve the proposed revision. Mr. Baldwin seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Hart introduced a subject not on the agenda. He would like to build two carports over the
residential parking spaces in the lot behind the River Street Plaza building at 1020 First Street.
Mr. Hart would also like to build a 132 square foot shed on the property, to be used for storage
by residents. The concept included a hip roof on the carport structures, and a 5:12 pitch shed
roof on the shed. While the project will have limited views, the Board agreed that an application
should be submitted that shows building elevations, including surrounding structures and walls,
and lighting. The project will be formally proposed to the full Board at a future meeting.
5.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
a.
Draft language for Railings
The Board reviewed images of various types of railings. The Board agreed that the images
determined to be consistent with the character of the Historic District should be integrated into a
handout to provide to the public.
b.
Individual Design Reviews
Staff presented individual member reviews from the preceding month.
6.
ADJOURN 9:00 pm
NEXT MEETING: The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 10,
2014, at 7:00 pm in the Postmaster Conference Room, Snohomish City Hall, 116 Union Avenue.
Approved this 10th day of September 2014
By: _____________________________________________________
Darcy Mertz Krewson, Chair
Meeting attended and minutes prepared by Lori Khile
Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes
Page 3
August 13, 2014
Action Item 4
CITY OF SNOHOMISH
Founded 1859, Incorporated 1890
116 UNION AVENUE • SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON 98290 • TEL (360) 568-3115 • FAX (360) 568-1375
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
Design Review Number:
13-28-DRB
Applicant:
Dean Broome
Property Address:
1116 Second Street
Application Date:
Project Description:
August 29, 2014
Rear addition and roofline modification
Meeting Date
September 10, 2014
Subject Proposal:
This proposal is for modifications to the former garage on the property at 1122 Second Street.
The building has had various uses since serving as a garage, including residential and
commercial uses. The current use is a hair salon. The primary building on the site, a former
single-family home addressed as 1122 Second Street, is identified as the Harris House on the
City’s List of Officially Designated Historic Structures in Appendix C of the Historic District
Design Standards.
The applicant is proposing a 38 square foot addition to the rear of the building to use as a laundry
room. The addition will not extend the full length of the rear façade. A new two-foot by twofoot vinyl sliding window is proposed with trim to match the existing single hung rear window.
A new exterior door will be located on the west side of the addition area. The applicant is
proposing a four-panel door with a six-lite window. Hardware details have not been submitted.
The addition will be faced in architectural cement fiber lap siding. The roofline of the existing
structure will extend to the addition area.
Additionally, the applicant is requesting a determination from the Board for a roofline
modification that was constructed on the front of the building late in 2013. The proposal was
reviewed conceptually by the Board at the December meeting, and direction was provided to
return with a revised proposal, with a suggestion for a shed roof design. The applicant has
decided not to revise the proposal. The gabled roof pitch echoes the slope of the parapet wall
behind and is faced in shake shingles. The existing tenant sign, previously hung on the parapet
wall, is installed on the new façade area.
While the appearance of the new roofline may be disproportionate to the scale of the building as
noted in December, staff has concerns regarding the justification for requiring a redesign. The
project was determined to be noncompliant with standard B.2.c, requiring a consistent style. The
building has been modified incrementally over the years from when it was originally constructed
as a one-car garage. Staff believes it is likely, though not confirmed in the record, that the
parapet wall is not original to the building. Records from 1985 show another short parapet
structure was installed at one time along the perimeter of the canopy, which also does not appear
Design Review Board
Page 1
Action Item 4
to be original. There are no records on file for the building prior to that year. However the
Assessor’s records indicate the larger building was constructed in 1885 and it appears likely that
the former garage is at least 50 years old.
Project Location:
The site is addressed as 1116 Second Street, in the Historic District.
Land-Use Designation:
Historic Business District
Requested Review:
The applicant has requested a detailed review.
Compliance with the Land Use Development Code - Title 14 SMC
The proposal does not appear to conflict with development regulations in Title 14 SMC.
HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS
1.B.2. COMMERCIAL BUILDING STYLE
Each façade shall be finished with architectural detail.
Board evaluation:
Consistent:

Inconsistent:

More information needed:

Notes:
Staff comments: Although minimal detailing is proposed by the applicant, the expanded wall
sections constitute very little additional area on the building, which is quite small. The existing
structure appears to be about 12-feet wide. A window with trim to match the existing on the
north side is proposed, which provides some detail. The pitch of the new entryway roof matches
the roofline on top of the parapet wall at the front of the building.
1.B.2. COMMERCIAL BUILDING STYLE
Building design shall reflect and augment the identity and visual character of Snohomish.
Board evaluation:
Consistent:

Inconsistent:

More information needed:

Notes:
Staff comments: The structure was built as an accessory building to a larger, more historic
building on the same property. It likely had a plain original design that was expanded when the
use changed from a garage to a commercial use, then apartment, then back to commercial. New
elements have evidently been added to the structure over the decades, and the current proposal
Design Review Board
Page 2
Action Item 4
further modifies the structure from its original form. At its December 2013 meeting, the Board
commented on inconsistencies in the design of the front overhang relative to the remainder of the
building, but did not specifically address this standard. If the Board has specific concerns
regarding consistency of the overall design or details with the visual character of the Historic
District, staff would appreciate the Board’s comments.
1.B.2. COMMERCIAL BUILDING STYLE
A building’s style shall be consistent throughout; details from different eras shall not be
mixed on a single building.
Board evaluation:
Consistent:

Inconsistent:

More information needed:

Notes:
Staff comments: During the conceptual review, the proposal was determined not to comply with
this standard, though staff was unable to identify a specific, single building style. The building
somewhat resembles the American Homestead Style when viewed from the front, however the
parapet wall and former flat entry canopy are inconsistent with this style. In 1985, a parapet
wall was also present over the canopy. The structure was initially built as a one-car garage and
subsequently modified over the years, changing land use as well as appearance. Though not
confirmed in the record, the parapet wall above the pitched roof was likely added some time
after the building was initially constructed. If the Board believes that the proposal is
noncompliant with this standard and that such noncompliance is sufficient to recommend denial,
staff requests that the Board’s findings clearly indicate the building style that primarily
characterizes the building, and specific aspects of the proposal that are inconsistent with the
primary style.
1.B.2. COMMERCIAL BUILDING STYLE
Appropriate building materials.
Board evaluation:
Consistent:

Inconsistent:

More information needed:

Notes:
Staff comments: The applicant is proposing cement fiber lap siding for the addition area and
shake shingles over the front porch. A small vinyl window is proposed, with trim and dimensions
that will match the existing rear window.
Design Review Board
Page 3
Action Item 4
1.B.2. COMMERCIAL BUILDING STYLE
Historically appropriate building storefronts and roofs: Parapets, flat roofs, 8:12 and
steeper sloped roofs, and hipped roofs are historically appropriate.
Board evaluation:
Consistent:

Inconsistent:

More information needed:

Notes:
Staff comments: The roof pitch of the addition will continue the pitch of the original structure,
which is approximately 5:12. The applicant has replaced a flat entryway roof with a pitched
entry roof that matches the pitch of the parapet wall roofline.
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION
2.
The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic
materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
3.
Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes
that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or
architectural elements from other buildings shall not be undertaken.
4.
Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in
their own right shall be retained and preserved.
5.
Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that
characterize a property shall be preserved.
6.
Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the
old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
Board evaluation:
Consistent:

Inconsistent:

More information needed:

Notes:
Staff comments: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are directed to a property, rather than
a specific structure. It is possible that the building in question does not particularly contribute
to the character of the property, which also contains an historic home that has been converted to
apartments. The subject building was constructed as an accessory building to serve the larger
structure in 1885, when the original home was built, or thereafter. The current structure is the
result of building evolution, and it does not appear that the original character of the building
was preserved with the various improvements, embellishments, and modifications that have
Design Review Board
Page 4
Action Item 4
taken place over time. The new entryway roof is a replacement of the previous flat roof
entryway. While the flat roof may have been repairable, the applicant has stated that it was
replaced due to water intrusion, which can be an issue with roofs of that type.
PLANNING STAFF CONSIDERATIONS:
The building in question was constructed as a one-car garage for the larger home on the
property. Over the years, the use of the building has changed several times. As the use changed,
the appearance was modified. Embellishments were added such as decorative knee braces and
corbels; the previous flat roof and canopy were also likely additions to meet the needs of a
commercial use. The current proposal for an addition in the rear is consistent with this
approach, as the business has a need for an on-site laundry facility. The roofline modification
similarly meets the need to prevent water intrusion inside the structure. Though staff concurs
that the gable roof pitch is out of scale with the main structure and parapet roof, it is difficult to
identify a specific standard that the proposal does not comply with. Since the applicant has
indicated that he is not willing to accommodate the Board’s suggested modifications, staff
strongly encourages the Board to make a recommendation based on a clear nexus in the adopted
standards.
Design Review Board
Page 5
Action Item 4
Design Review Board
Page 6
Action Item 4
Design Review Board
Page 7
Action Item 4
Design Review Board
Page 8
Action Item 4
View of building rear, facing South (staff photo taken August 29, 2014)
Design Review Board
Page 9
Action Item 4
Proposed external door: Jeld Wen 4-panel (as shown in image on right) with a 6 lite square
glazing (as shown in image on left)
Proposed window, with trim to match existing (specifications on following page)
Design Review Board
Page 10
Action Item 4
Design Review Board
Page 11
Action Item 4
View from Second Street, before roofline modifications (Google Earth image)
Design Review Board
Page 12
Action Item 4
Facing North (staff photos dated August 29, 2014)
Design Review Board
Page 13
Action Item 4
View facing East (staff photo dated August 29, 2014)
View facing West (staff photo dated August 29, 2014)
Design Review Board
Page 14
Action Item 4
View facing North (file photo circa 1985)
View facing East (file photo circa 1985)
Design Review Board
Page 15
Action Item 4
Excerpt from December 2013 meeting minutes
Mr. Dvorak presented the proposal to the Board. The applicant is seeking approval for
modifications to the roofline of an existing building. The project has been initiated, and an afterthe-fact building permit application is on hold pending the Board’s review. The pitch of the
entryway roofline was modified from a flat roof to a gable roof, matching the pitch of the
roofline of the parapet wall behind. The work has not yet been completed. The applicant has
brought images of the proposed siding that will be used to cover the new roof façade, which is
presently covered in tar paper.
The age of the building is unclear; it is accessory to the primary structure on the site, which was
constructed in 1885. The structure is very small and has been used for a variety of land uses
including both commercial and residential. The use is presently a hair salon. The building has
evolved substantially over the years, and the historical significance of the structure is unclear.
Mr. Broome stated the building was at one time a single car garage, and has issues with water
damage due to the flat roof design. Water runs down the interior of the soffit and damages the
plywood structure beneath. Additionally, the fascia does not hold paint. The torchdown roof
was installed ten years ago, and a subsequent windstorm lifted some corners. The initial scope of
work was to replace the fascia, however the amount of damage that was discovered required a
more involved project. The pitch style roof was installed to eliminate water infiltration and
gutters were replaced. He matched the existing roof pitch because he thought it looked nicer.
The Board agreed the new roofline is disproportionately large for the building. Ms. Krewson
stated the roofline also represents a mixing of eras, and creates three different heights. Mr.
Rautenberg suggested a shed roof instead of a gable roof. Mr. Baldwin stated the original
structure appears to have been constructed in the 1920s and was not built with style or form in
mind, however a shed roof would be typical for the American homestead style. He noted a shed
roof may not have been used originally because a flat roof provided full coverage of the structure
and used the same eave height as the roof behind.
Ms. Krewson asked if the posts will be replaced. Mr. Broome answered the original posts will
remain, although he had considered thickening them. He stated a shallower pitched roof would
have required demolishing the entire porch structure. His tenant suggested making the façade
area large enough to install a sign, which a shed roof might not accommodate.
Ms. Robinett Wilson stated with a 3:12 pitch, a shed roof would only obscure about one foot of
façade; a fairly large sign could still be installed on the building wall.
Mr. Rautenberg moved to postpone further discussion with a recommendation that a new,
detailed design be submitted by the applicant. Ms. Robinett Wilson seconded the motion. The
motion passed 5-0.
Design Review Board
Page 16
Discussion Item 5a
Date:
September 10, 2014
To:
Design Review Board
From:
Brooke Eidem, Associate Planner
Subject: Design Standards for Fences, Walls, and Railings in the Historic District
______________________________________________________________________________
This discussion item presents an opportunity for the Board to consider an alternative approach to
the handrails and guardrails standards. Staff has reviewed Boardmember Baldwin’s draft
language and it was apparent that some of the standards, materials, and definitions are similar to
Section 3 of the existing document, with several areas overlap. Staff has integrated Mr.
Baldwin’s language into the existing standards for a combined section addressing Fences, Walls,
and Railings for the Board’s consideration.
Section 3 has not been reviewed by the Board to date, and so no substantial changes to existing
adopted language are proposed at this time. Minor edits have been made to the organization and
phrasing in order to accommodate the new language specific to railings. Changes are shown in
strikethrough and underlined text. An intent statement has been drafted, and several railing
images have been inserted as placeholders.
Staff believes it will be most efficient for the Board to review the standards related to fences,
walls, and railings collectively. As provided in previous staff reports for this discussion item,
staff suggests the Board consider the following guidance when reviewing the language prior to
the meeting:






Is the language clear and understandable for a lay person?
Have all potential materials been addressed?
Have all potential situations been addressed where a hand rail or guard rail may be used,
such as balconies, ramps, stairways, sidewalks, etc.?
Is there more than one way to interpret the standard?
Is the intent clear?
Are any standards more prescriptive than is necessary to accomplish the intent?
Design Review Board
Page 17
Discussion Item 5a
Fences, Walls and Railings
Intent:
While serving a utilitarian function, fences, walls, and railings are
important elements of the overall character of a neighborhood. They can be
character-defining features, and their design is often an indication of the style or
period of a building or property. Original elements should be retained and restored
wherever possible. Where replacement of deteriorated elements is necessary, the
same materials, design, and dimensions is strongly encouraged. New and
replacement fences, walls, and railing structures should be compatible with the
style of the building and property on which they are to be installed and consistent
with the 1880 to 1930 era.
A.
Definitions
FENCE: A landscape fence is a wall outside of a building, constructed of
wood, metal fiber, (or combinations of these) , and with no more than
80 percent opacity.
WALL: A vertical element used to enclose space. A landscape wall is
defined as an exterior structure, not more than one foot thick or less
than four feet long, with opacity equal or greater than 80 percent.
HANDRAIL: A horizontal or sloping rail intended for grasping by the hand
for guidance or support. A handrail is not a fence, but may be
attached to a fence.
GUARDRAIL: A building component or a system of building components
located at or near the open sides of elevated walking surfaces that
minimizes the possibility of a fall from the walking surface to a lower
level.
B.
Materials
The following materials may NOT be used in the visible construction of
fences, walls and railings:





Chain link or wire mesh of any type.
Plastic material of any kind, including plastic lumber.
Barbed wire and razor wire.
Hollow metal tubing smaller than one inch outside diameter.
Plywood, chipboard, particleboard and other engineered wood products.
Design Review Board
Page 18
Discussion Item 5a
 Pipe fittings used for plumbing or steamfitting (threaded or sweat
fittings). Flush fit welded fittings are permitted.
 Cast concrete without decorative texture or treatment.
The Design Review Board shall determine what constitutes an
acceptable decorative texture or treatment.
See examples below for
acceptable treatments.
 Plain concrete block¸ or cinder block.
Plain concrete block or "cinder block" shall not be used. Manufactured
masonry block may be used provided it exhibits decorative surface,
with the DRB determining its acceptability. See example below.
An example of
acceptable
masonry block
with decorative
surface.
 Plate or Sheet Metal less than 1/8 inch thick for fences and walls.
No corrugated or flat sheet metal less than 1/8 inch thick. This does not
apply to decorative elements smaller than 8 square inches of area, and
representing less than 20% of total surface area of the fence, wall, or
railing.
 Exposed pressure treated wood for fences and walls with perforated
surface. Pressure treated wood must be appearance grade.
 Expanded metal mesh of any type.
 Solid bar stock smaller than 3/8” round section, or ¼” by ¾” for
rectangular sections. This does not apply to tapered sections made from
thicker bars. Deformed or re-enforcing rod for concrete is not
permitted.
Design Review Board
Page 19
Discussion Item 5a
 Bright finished aluminum or stainless steel.
Dark anodized aluminum or painted or powder coated finish is
permitted. This does not apply to fasteners.
 Bright surface plated metal of any type, including chrome and nickel
plating. Silver and gold gilt surfaces, and hot-dipped iron is permitted.
This does not apply to fasteners.
C.
Additional standards for fences, walls and railings:
1.
Fence Height
No fence may be of a height greater than six feet, except to provide
screening for commercial activities as required by state, county or city
law or ordinances.
2.
Use a vertical or horizontal orientation for wood boards
Fences constructed of wood boards or timbers must use a vertical or
horizontal orientation of the boards. Diagonal placement of board
elements is prohibited.
3.
Modulate top ends of boards or pickets
Vertically oriented board or pickets, if not capped, shall have the top
ends modulated (formed) in someway other than a square cut end,
unless the top element is used specifically for grasping. See examples
below of approved top ends of pickets and boards.
Design Review Board
Page 20
Discussion Item 5a
4.
Modulate top ends of metal pickets
Metal pickets must have a modulated top end unless the top element is
used specifically for grasping; plain square ends are prohibited. See
examples below of approved top ends of metal pickets.
5.
Pipe and metal tubing
Pipe and metal tubing may be used only as vertical posts and then only
if capped with a decorative finial, unless the top element is used
specifically for grasping. The DRB shall determine the suitability of
any proposed finial. Plain pipe railing and fencing is specifically not
permitted.
Guard rails and hand rails may be fabricated from pipe or tubing
provided they conform to the following criteria:
A.
At least two different sections must be used (ie., posts in a
guard rail are 2” pipe and the screening elements are 1” pipe).
B.
All vertical elements, including posts and pickets, must have a
modulated top end; plain cut ends are prohibited. The end may be a
decorative cap, finial, bend or integrally worked end element. The use
of flush welded end caps is prohibited.
C.
All horizontally-oriented top elements must have a decorative
element (such as a finial) placed at intervals of not greater than 6 feet.
Exempted: handrails and other surfaces designed specifically for
grasping. Add-on elements used to discourage skateboarding shall be
evaluated as a part of the design and shall be of a similar style.
Design Review Board
Page 21
Discussion Item 5a
6.
Industrial style railing is prohibited
Industrial style railing is prohibited. This is defined as a guard or
handrail that is fabricated from pipe or tubing using industrial flushwelded fittings for joining, radius bends and attachment elements. Such
railings are characterized by a limited use of different sections, lack of
modulated line and no use of decorative elements.
7.
Wood lattice
The use of manufactured wood lattice with a diagonal element in a
fence is permitted.
8.
Roofs incorporated in fence or wall structures
A protective roof may be incorporated into the structure of a fence or
wall, within required setback. However, the roof may not project more
than one foot from either surface of the fence.
9.
Opening sizes in fences and walls
There is no maximum opening size for fences except where used as
guardrails.
Design Review Board
Page 22
Discussion Item 5a
10. Do not paint masonry
All masonry surfaces are to remain unpainted.
11. Walls and fences at City right-of-way
Walls and fences facing a city right-of-way, road or alley must have at
least one opening, not less than three feet wide. A gate or door, subject
to the same material considerations as fences or walls may close the
opening.
D.
Fences Exempt from DRB review:
1. Picket fences
Picket fences are defined as wood board fences made up of vertical
boards not more than 3 ½" wide with spacing of not less than 2" and not
higher than 4 feet with modulated ends shall not require DRB approval.
2. Construction fences
Fences erected for construction purposes, to be standing not more than
one year or the duration of the building permit.
Design Review Board
Page 23
Discussion Item 5b
Date:
September 10, 2014
To:
Design Review Board
From:
Brooke Eidem, Associate Planner
Summary of Individual Member Design Reviews – August 9, 2014 – September 4,
2014
______________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
There were no individual design reviews conducted during the previous month.
Design Review Board
Page 24