Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-08-06 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2006 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Scott Hedglin Susan Kozub, Associate Planner Mel Howe Martin Knight, Planner Michael Pentecost Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Dawn Smith Elissa Zavora Visitors Present Don Stueck Thomas Bitnar Tom Wood Rick Kerin Kath Williams ITEM 2. Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of February 22, 2006. Mr. Pentecost noted on page 8, the last paragraph, he would change the first sentence to read, “Mr. Pentecost stated he was there to review what was being shown and not whether or not the building worked.” Ms. Zavora noted on page 3, fifth paragraph, third sentence, the word “reloading” should be changed to “keeping”. Mr. Hedglin moved, Ms. Zavora seconded, to approve the minutes of February 22, 2006 as amended. Mr. Hedglin noted the minutes of February 8th meeting have yet to be approved as the Board asked for them to be resubmitted due to an omission. ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB – Susan Kozub. Associate Planner Susan Kozub noted the Planning Deparetment is short staffed and she would not be able to work help with DRB procedures for at least a month or so. Planner Kozub noted the drive-through windows facing a street have not been looked upon favorably in the past by the Board. Chairperson Smith noted there were safety issues with the Taco place on North 7th Avenue. Chairperson Smith asked how Lots 11 and 12 of Gallatin Center Subdivision were addressing the parking requirements. Planner Kozub explained how the parking calculations for Lot 11 were calculated. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW IHOP Sketch Plan/COA #Z-06016 (Kozub) Southwest of Tschache and 19th Ave. * A Sketch Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 5,000 square foot restaurant with related site improvements. Rick Kerin joined the DRB. Associate Planner Susan Kozub reviewed the Staff Report, noting the elevations were the portions to be reviewed as the site plan and layout were previously approved by the City Commission with the Stoneridge Square PUD. She noted the smaller sheet in the packets indicates an alternative design for the north elevation. She reviewed the recommended Staff conditions. Mr. Pentecost asked if the PUD specifically stated that franchise architecture was excluded. Planner Kozub note the Final PUD hadn’t been submitted, so she was unsure of the exact language but that there was a condition that the guidelines shall not allow franchise architecture unless the design draws upon regional traditions and materials and is complementary to the PUD (condition #3A of the Stoneridge Square PUD). Mr. Howe asked if the orientation of the building was still the same. Planner Kozub noted it was the same orientation and nearly the same footprint. She noted a door had been added on the North 19th Avenue elevation. Mr. Howe clarified that staff felt the Tschache Lane elevation wasn’t well designed. Mr. Hedglin noted the exterior finish was drawn as tile, but noted as masonry. Ms. Zavora asked if the exterior finish was real brick or veneer. Planner Kozub noted it was labeled as veneer. Chairperson Smith asked how the Design Objectives Guidelines addressed the Tschache Lane elevation. Planner Kozub noted no “back” elevations are permitted for a building facing a street. Chairperson Smith noted both elevations would be viewed from either street. Rick Kerin noted he was present to take notes and answer questions. Mr. Hedglin asked Mr. Kerin if he was aware of the location of the electrical transformer. Mr. Kerin stated he was not aware at this time. Planner Kozub noted it would be the least obtrusive if located on the west elevation. Mr. Hedglin noted the Board would want to know to review the screening materials. Mr. Pentecost asked, if IHOP as a franchise is coming to Bozeman, what happens if the design were declared unacceptable, would the franchise then change its plan. Mr. Kerin noted he was unsure. Planner Kozub noted franchises in other towns such as Fort Collins, CO or Jackson, WY, don’t have the franchise architecture. Mr. Howe noted the original submittal wasn’t all that different from the current one except the newest one is in color. Mr. Hedglin noted he wasn’t overly impressed with the submittal. He noted the transformer location and the trash enclosure location are missing and need to be included in the elevation drawings. He stated the sidewalk along the east side is unnecessary as the sidewalk from the south side could connect to the trail. Mr. Kerin noted the mid-block approach and the trail will be redesigned as part of the PUD. Planner Kozub noted staff and the Parks and Recreation Board will have to work out the location of the trail. Mr. Kerin explained the change from a sidewalk and a bike lane to a wider sidewalk for cyclists. Mr. Pentecost noted all four elevations of the structure have to be strong. He stated he is not willing to accept the submitted elevations. Ms. Zavora noted the brick veneer should be shown more accurately, and that materials and color samples would be helpful. Chairperson Smith noted the old and new elevations are basically identical and the new submittal doesn’t change the architecture. She noted the building needs to be four sided. She cited several structures in the subdivision that meet the condition such as the bank and Wheat Montana. She stated she wants to see more detail on all four elevations. She asked how this development could be reviewed as a sketch plan. Planner Kozub noted the City Commission drafted a condition for the DRB to review each site as it is developed to ensure the elevations are adequate. She also noted the DRC will review the Final PUD when it is submitted and the footprints for each lot will be set at that time. MOTION: Mr. Pentecost moved, Mr. Hedglin seconded, to recommend denial of application #Z-06016 as presented today. The motion carried 5-0. The Board indicated they wanted to see a color palette, the location and screening of the mechanical equipment and utilities, and the trash enclosure and a four-sided building. ITEM 5. INFORMAL REVIEW Burgard Informal #I-06004 (Knight) Osterman Drive between Frontage Road and I-90 An Informal Application for advice and comment on a 30,000 square foot light manufacturing and office building. Chris Burgard and Thomas Bitnar joined the DRB. Mr. Burgard noted the goal is to construct a “green,” LEED certified building. Mr. Bitnar stated this is a pilot project. He described the project and the number of parking spaces required. He noted the new drawing shows the parking at 18% below the requirement. Planner Knight presented the staff memo. He noted the structure is a four sided building. The DRB members took a tour of the exhibits. Chairperson Smith asked what LEED building is. Ms. Kath Williams described the it as a system to evaluate the building for environmental issues. {At least four conversations going on at once!} Mr. Burgard noted there could be up to three loading doors in the building, depending on the uses. Mr. Bitnar noted the structure would define the east “gateway” to the city. Ms. Zavora asked why the west side was solid wood. Mr. Bitnar noted the mechanical equipment is located behind the wall. Mr. Pentecost asked if solar energy would be used. He was assured it would. He asked if seismic issues had been addressed. Mr. Burgard noted he is planning a steel structure. Mr. Bitnar noted there will be a double façade on the south side to promote air circulation and reduce noise from the interstate. Ms. Zavora asked if specific species of trees would be required. Mr. Bitnar noted they plan to use a mixture of trees, with deciduous trees being predominant to allow light to pass through in the winter and provide shade in the summer. Planner Knight noted native species would be required. Chairperson Smith asked if the 2020 plan addresses environmentally friendly projects, and would the City look more kindly on a building of this quality. Planner Kozub noted Staff would find it very easy to support deviations for this type of project. She noted the LEED’s requirements are more strict than those for the City. Ms. Williams noted a lot of cities and counties receive expedited permitting processes for the LEED’s structures. She noted the primary difference is the lack of maintenance in the long term and the savings in energy costs. Ms. Zavora asked if this was an original design and was not LEED’s promoted. Mr. Burgurd noted a developer has the ability to design his own structure. Ms. Williams noted there are special requirements for recycling the waste materials. Mr. Hedglin asked if the materials are available locally. Ms. Williams noted they are. She noted it will be the first commercial “green,” LEED building in Montana. Mr. Stueck noted he is proud to be part of the team. Mr. Wood noted the LEED certification would be given by the head of the corporation. Chairperson Smith asked if there would be an issue with headlights reflecting from the glass into traffic on the interstate. Mr. Bitnar noted the glass would be non-reflective. Mr. Hedglin suggested they pay particular attention to the east elevation and the sun’s reflection from it. Mr. Bitnar noted they would study the spring and fall sun to see what angle would be required from the louvers. Mr. Pentecost applauded the use of “green” design, and the effort to construct a certified building. He noted they appear to be doing it right as they have the contractor on board and have a good team. He noted he would support the reduction in parking if necessary. He noted if he were driving past a building such as this as the introduction to Bozeman, he would be impressed and would probably stop. Mr. Howe noted there is a high commitment to good design for the project. He stated he would fully support the architecture style. Mr. Hedglin noted the LEED requirements would take care of any parking lot issues with landscaped islands for any shading needed. He challenged them to make the building belong in and unique to Bozeman. ITEM 6. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board and not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} Chairperson Smith called for public comment on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board and not on this agenda. Ms. Williams offered to do a one to two hour presentation on LEED and “green” buildings. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Design Review Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. _________________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City Of Bozeman Design Review Board