Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board backs Brennaman Group office, asks for revised batten spacing
Summary
On Sept. 3 the Design Review Board gave a favorable recommendation to the Brennaman Group’s proposed one-story, roughly 4,000 sq ft office at Town Crossing, approving the project 5-0 with a stipulation that the applicant revise batten spacing to better align with window openings.
GREEN — The Design Review Board on Sept. 3 recommended approval of the Brennaman Group’s proposed single-story office at Town Crossing but asked the applicant to adjust exterior battens so they align more closely with window openings.
John Elsey, an architect with GBC Design, described the project as "basically, it's just over 4,000 square foot office building, single story, no basement," saying the design meets setbacks and height limits and that the site plan was developed to protect a large oak tree on the southeast corner by moving parking away from the drip line. Elsey said the team intends a rustic Craftsman look with stone, shingle siding and black windows, and presented exterior samples to the board.
Board members pressed for more detail on siding rhythm and trim around windows. "Do we look at the spacing of the battens and more align them so that they have a better, more meaningful pattern as they relate to the windows?" a committee member asked during the discussion. Drew Schultz of Schultz Design and Construction, the contractor on the project, responded that the plans show "4 foot breaks as it's shown on the plan" and that adding additional trim could make the facade too busy, but said the team would consider adjustments.
After discussion, a board member moved and the board voted 5-0 to forward a favorable recommendation to planning with the stipulation that the applicant review and adjust batten spacing to better align with window openings. The motion also recorded that the applicant should finalize sign details at a later date; applicants had presented a monument-style sign concept but said they would submit final sign designs separately.
Elsey and Schultz noted other compliance items that staff had already reviewed and found in order, including photometrics and stormwater calculations. The board acknowledged the applicant’s effort to preserve existing landscaping and said the protection of the large oak informed the site layout.
The board also approved the August meeting minutes earlier in the session and adjourned after the Brentnaman discussion. Next procedural steps: the project moves to the planning review process with the board’s recommendation and the applicant will return with final sign details when available.
