Design Review & Historic Preservation Board MeetingAgenda

Puyallup City Council Chambers 333 South Meridian, Puyallup 98371

August 03, 2017 4:00 PM

ROLL CALL

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

WORKSESSION TOPICS

Downtown Brew P-17-0070 STAFF REPORT.pdfP-17-0070 Design Review Application.pdf

OTHER BOARD BUSINESS

ADJOURNMENT

The City Council Chambers is wheelchair accessible. Those needing assistance with hearing devicesshould contact the City Clerk's Office (253-841-5480) the Friday preceding the meeting.

1

Design Review & Historic Preservation BoardAgenda Item Report

Submitted by: Rachael BrownSubmitting Department: Development Services Meeting Date: August 3, 2017

Subject:Downtown Brew

Presenter:Rachael Brown | Assistant Planner | 253-770-3363 | rnbrown@ci.puyallup.wa.us

Recommendation:Discussion/Determination

Background:The Planning Division has received an application for downtown design review for a proposed addition of a recessedentrance with windows and glass door entrance at 115 W Meeker. Staff will present this application to the Board for adetermination of its consistency with the Historical buildings section and other applicable sections of the DowntownDesign Guidelines. More information can be reviewed in the attached staff memo and application materials.

Council Direction:

Fiscal Impacts:

Attachments P-17-0070 STAFF REPORT.pdf P-17-0070 Design Review Application.pdf

2

CITY OF PUYALLUP Development Services Department 333 South Meridian Puyallup, WA 98371 (253) 770-3363 rnbrown@ci.puyallup.wa.us

Page 1 of 6 Staff Report – DRT #P-17-0070

Case Number: P-17-0070 Date of public meeting: 8/3/2017 To: Design Review and Historic Preservation Board From: Rachael Brown, Assistant Planner Re: Downtown Brew LLC (115 W. Meeker) – Remodel Applicant: Cindy Kuzmer Location: 115 W Meeker; Parcel #2960000110 Zoning: Central Business District-Core (CBD-Core) Surrounding Area: The subject site is surrounded by CBD-Core zoned properties. The surrounding properties

are a mix of retail, professional offices, and food service uses. Summary of Request: Review and approve the proposed exterior changes for an existing commercial tenant

space at 115 W. Meeker. The building was constructed in 1954; exterior modifications to the building are required to receive approval from the Design Review and Historic Preservation Board (PMC 2.29.070 (1)(a)(ii)).

SITE MAP

3

Page 2 of 6 Staff Report – DRT #P-17-0070

BACKGROUND

According to the Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer’s records, the subject property was built in 1954, and the property is currently zoned Central Business District Core (CBD-Core); the building was remodeled in 2002. The subject property was a part of two reconnaissance level surveys, occurring in 2007 and 2011. When the property was reviewed, it was undetermined as to whether the property was eligible for the local, state, or national registers. According to the WISAARD database the two-story, unreinforced masonry building has a roof clad in an unknown material and the walls of the commercial form are clad principally in an unknown material.

Significance Narrative (excerpt): “This building, constructed in 1954, is part of the commercial core and represents post-war development of businesses in the city.”

Physical Description: “flat-roofed building situated mid-block, its primary façade facing south. The façade has three aluminum storefronts and is finished with gray and buff-colored sandstone, laid up in broken range coursing. A black vinyl awning runs the width of the façade, above the storefronts.”

FIGURE 1 PHOTO FROM DAHP WISARRD (YEAR UNKNOWN). SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS “LEE’S MARTIAL ARTS” WHEN PHOTO WAS TAKEN.

4

Page 3 of 6 Staff Report – DRT #P-17-0070

FIGURE 2 CURRENT FRONT FAÇADE (2017)

FIGURE 3 PROPOSED FACADE CHANGES

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES

Puyallup Municipal Code (PMC) section 2.29.070 (1)(a)(ii) requires any exterior alterations, additions or modifications of historic structures, which are defined as being constructed more than 50 years ago, in the CBD or CBD-Core zones, to receive approval from the Design Review and Historic Preservation Board (DRHPB).

5

Page 4 of 6 Staff Report – DRT #P-17-0070

The following represents analysis of the applicable design guidelines from the city’s Downtown Design Guidelines document (April 2006) relative to the project proposal:

“Historic Properties”

“O: Articulation (pedestrian realm; historic cornice line; roofline)”

Intent: “Maintain and reinforce the overall massing, form modulations and roof forms of historic buildings while allowing projects to be restored and updated to current code requirements.”

Staff analysis:

• The proposal makes minimal changes to the massing of the building. • The original flat roofline, canopy and large row of windows are retained.

“P: Modulation and form of building elements (entries, porches, projected or recessed bays, etc.)”

Intent: Reflect and reinforce the overall modulation and forms of older buildings while allowing the project to be renovated.

Staff analysis:

• The proposal appears to reinforce the existing overall modulation of the building by adding a recessed entry which matches the two other recessed entries in form and materials.

“Q: Façade features (windows, building materials, color, lighting, etc.)”

Intent: Require the detailing and embellishment of new buildings to reflect historical building elements, such as brick, to provide consistency between building additions and historic structures while allowing limited variation and alteration of the overall historic design.

Staff analysis:

• The stacked brick proposed for the new entry way appears to be consistent with the current stacked brick on the façade.

• The proposed door and windows with metal trim appear to be consistent with the color and dimensions of the existing doors and windows.

• The applicant noted that the proposed red brick is consistent with the original brick.

“All Buildings”

“A: Blank Wall Treatment”

Intent: Improve the pedestrian experience by reducing the visual impact of blank walls through the use of embellishments, particularly along sidewalks.

Staff analysis:

6

Page 5 of 6 Staff Report – DRT #P-17-0070

• The proposed recessed entry would provide additional visual interest along the sidewalk by adding more modulation to the façade.

• The guidelines indicate that multiple materials, color, texture and/or accents should be used. The proposal uses multiple types of materials such as rough sealed wood, red brick, and stacked brick in the entry way which also improves the visual interest of the streetscape and conforms to this requirement.

“B: Pedestrian Weather Protection”

Intent: Improve the downtown pedestrian experience through weather protection (improvements require City approval within the right-of-way).

Staff analysis:

• The proposal would retain the existing canopy which provides pedestrian weather protection over the sidewalk.

“C: Window Glazing”

Intent: Enhance street environment by requiring a majority (60%) of the ground floor façade to be glazed while allowing upper floor window variation.

Staff analysis:

• The proposed replacement of one window pane for a recessed entry and glass door meet the 60% glazing requirement (measured from 2’-8’ pedestrian zone).

• The proposed windows in the recessed entry way appear to be consistent with the windows in the existing entry ways in the building.

“D: Building Materials”

Intent: Enhance building façade appearance and visually reduce building bulk by incorporating an appropriate variety of high-quality materials.

Staff analysis:

• The proposal uses a combination of stacked brick, red brick, and rough sealed wood.

“E: Corner or View Corridor Terminus Buildings”

Intent: Emphasize building elements at important pedestrian intersections and areas affording visual orientation opportunities (view corridor terminus) in order to improve wayfinding. Incorporate special building forms, building material, signage, lighting, public plaza(s), and/or larger sidewalk areas at these key sidewalk locations, street intersections and urban locations.

Staff analysis:

• The subject site is located on W Meeker and is not located on a street corner, therefore this guideline would not apply.

7

Page 6 of 6 Staff Report – DRT #P-17-0070

“Small Projects”

“I: Articulation of ground level, historic cornice line, and or/roofline.”

Intent: Incorporate multiple building features such as cornices, weather protection elements, signage bands, and other elements to reinforce the pedestrian scale, ground floor orientation, and visual continuity to abutting buildings.

Staff analysis:

• The proposal would incorporate multiple building features into the façade including retaining the existing canopy which provides pedestrian weather protection over the sidewalk, adding additional signage to the canopy, and retaining and adding large pedestrian scale windows and a glazed door.

“J: Modulation of building elements”

Intent: Use modulation, in contrast to horizontal articulation, to reinforce the individuality of a smaller building along a street consisting of many storefronts. Modulation is defined as the design manipulation of larger building elements over 200 square feet or the size of a typical room.

Staff analysis:

• The addition of the recessed entry way enhances the modulation of the façade.

“K: Facade features and variation”

Intent: Promote variation and freedom of design through the organization and articulation of various facade elements. Articulation is defined as the design manipulation of smaller building elements less than 100 square feet down to an element of one square foot.

Staff analysis:

• The addition of the recessed entry way adds articulation to this storefront.

Staff Conclusions

• The proposal is subject to DRHPB review due to the age of the building (prior to 1967 construction date), consistent with 2.29.070 (1)(a)(ii).

• The proposal appears to be generally consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines regarding articulation, modulation and façade features for Historic Properties.

• The proposal appears to be generally consistent with the All Buildings chapter in terms of blank wall treatment, pedestrian weather protection, window glazing, and building materials.

• The proposal appears to be generally consistent with the Small Projects chapter in terms of articulation, modulation of building elements, and façade features and variations.

Attachments:

1. DRHPB Review Application

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22