Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-25-07 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2007 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Mel Howe Martin Knight, Assistant Planner Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Bill Rea Christopher Livingston Elissa Zavora Visitors Present Tim Kearns Martha Jo Kearns ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2007. Chairperson Livingston stated that on page 4, the first full paragraph should read “he stated the proposed design had had not been viewed favorably in an informal review” instead of “denied”. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of July 11, 2007 with corrections. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Bridger Center MiSub Master SP #Z-07119 (Knight) 100, 104, 108, & 114 Bridger Center Drive * A four-lot Master Site Plan Application to allow the construction of four buildings and related site improvements. Tim & Martha Jo Kearns joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Martin Knight presented the Staff Report noting the revisions the applicant had made had addressed many of Staff conditions. Mr. Banziger joined the DRB. Mr. Kearns stated he had addressed Staff conditions and his primary concern was with the roof design of proposed building 3. He stated the 3D imaging had not turned out as clearly as he had hoped; adding that he had taken the DRB’s advice with regard to old brick work. He stated his proposed roof design was evident throughout the neighborhood (i.e. Harrington’s); adding that it would blend well with the surrounding agricultural uses. He stated he had added landscaping for screening purposes though they had already met the landscaping requirements. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked Planner Knight to address Staff conditions 4 and 5. Planner Knight responded that #4 addressed consistency of elements throughout the development and not the actual roof design. He stated that condition #5 addressed the proposed eight foot separation between buildings that Staff would have liked to have seen attached. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked Mr. Kearns his reason for not attaching the structures. Mr. Kearns responded that Northwestern Energy needed that area for utilities and it would provide better drainage on the site. Mr. Rea asked to see the proposed color and materials palette. Mr. Kearns presented the palette and described the colors, materials, and patterns that he would be using; adding that he would be using an old “Chicago style” aged brick. He explained the roofing material and color proposed for each lot. He stated the proposed awning would allow some light to filter through to avoid darkening the entrances. Mr. Rea stated he was stumped as to why the connection between the buildings had not been made to increase the usable square footage. Mr. Kearns responded that the mechanical equipment would need to be relocated and screened in that case and the utilities would need special access. Ms. Zavora asked if there was a reason that no landscaping had been instituted on the east sides of the buildings. Mr. Kearns responded there would be a drive isle and bump curbs in that location; adding that he had considered a fence there. Mr. Howe asked if the wall lights proposed above the awnings had been intentional. Mr. Kearns responded they had as the illumination from those locations would also light the entrances. Mr. Banziger asked the significance of alternating the colors between buildings. Mr. Kearns responded that there were economical reasons and there needed to be common elements amongst the buildings to tie them together. He added that it was a matter of preference. Mr. Banziger asked if there would be any metal roofs. Mr. Kearns responded that there would be no metal roofs. Mr. Banziger asked the color of the proposed banding. Mr. Kearns responded it would be a burgundy color. Mr. Banziger asked if condition #3 had been addressed. Planner Knight responded that the proposed awnings had addressed that condition. Mr. Howe asked Planner Knight what a bonderized finish was for metal. Mr. Kearns and Planner Knight responded the term had not been used correctly as it was a pre-paint finish. Chairperson Livingston asked the logic or advantage of having one building with pitched roofs and the rest with flat roofs. Mr. Kearns responded that one building was north facing and drainage there would freeze up if the roof were pitched. He stated that roof runoff could cause safety issues; adding that the drainage would be more efficient. He stated that he was trying to avoid placing drainage over entrances. Chairperson Livingston asked if the different appearances were due to different uses on each lot. Mr. Kearns responded it was a drainage issue and unrelated to the uses of the structures; adding that the design had been a pragmatic approach. Mr. Rea stated that conditions 2, 3, 4, and 7 had been met and asked if it would make sense to remove those conditions from the approval. Planner Knight responded that they had technically been met and could be removed if the DRB was comfortable with that. Ms. Zavora stated she did not see the recommended additional landscaping proposed to wrap around the buildings and additional parking lot screening; adding that it would be nice to see something other than washed rock (i.e. shrubs or perennials). Mr. Kearns responded that the UDO requirements for landscaping had been exceeded. Ms. Zavora responded that five of fifteen points had been met with the use of boulders. Mr. Howe added that they were minimum requirements and not maximum requirements. Mr. Kearns responded that his property would only be visible if Zigs Lumber storage area were removed. Ms. Zavora suggested more diversity and color on the proposal to make the building more visible. Mr. Banziger stated he thought the proposed colors matched nicely with the proposed brick; adding that he did not buy into the proposed alternating colors. He suggested consistency between the buildings (low and high use of colors) for a more elegant appearance to the development. He stated building 1 appeared like an auto body shop to him. He suggested a common roof design between building 1 and buildings 2 and 3. Mr. Kearns responded that he disagreed regarding the roof designs and he had approached the design of the proposal for economical building. He stated the shop space had been balanced with office space and would be provided affordably. Mr. Banziger suggested consistency in design was not the same type of design for all the buildings; adding that there was a responsibility to be more creative and effective in layout and design due to the proposals location within the Entryway Corridor. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he disagreed with Mr. Banziger regarding the uniformity between buildings; adding that it would add neither an advantage nor a disadvantage and he did not have a problem with the design of building 1. He suggested using dark windows throughout the development. He stated he was supportive of the proposed eight foot separation. Mr. Banziger stated he thought buildings 1 and 2 had been well done, but did not like the comparison of the two with building 3. Chairperson Livingston stated that Mr. Kearns was not the first person to comment on the confusion caused by the DOP; adding that it did not give particular instruction, but a series of options. He stated the DRB did not discuss how to view each proposal before the meetings so the applicant would get each member’s opinion. He stated the applicant had made good strides in the proposal with regard to previous DRB recommendations. He stated he thought the applicant would need landscaping for screening along the east side of the site where the drainage had been proposed. He stated he had mixed feelings about the burgundy and blue colors proposed due to their tendency toward oxidation, but was supportive of all the other proposed materials and colors. He stated that the elevation just looked funny with the wing-like feature and suggested addressing each elevation individually with regard to color; adding that those features just may stand out too much. He stated that there were strange alignments with the locations of the entrances and the lights; adding that the windows were not aligned either. He suggested that the alignment of those features would make the buildings present themselves in a more orderly fashion. Mr. Kearns responded that the structures would be core shell buildings; adding that he may have multiple tenants with different sizes of space and the lights would need to be moved repeatedly and the lighting had been instituted primarily to provide parking lot lighting. Chairperson Livingston stated they looked bad as depicted; and suggested lining up the hypothetical lighting on the hypothetical structure. Chairperson Livingston asked how hypothetical elevations would be approved. Planner Knight responded that if they were modified they would need to be reviewed again. Mr. Kearns stated he would build what had been proposed with the understanding that major modifications would require another review from the DRB. MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Bridger Center MiSub Master SP #Z-07119 with Staff conditions with the deletion of Staff conditions 2, 3, 4, & 5. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 4. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} There was no public available for comment at this time. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board