Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-05 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Mel Howe Susan Kozub, Planner I Scott Hedglin Ben Ehreth, Assistant Planner Brian Krueger Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Dawn Smith Joseph Thomas Bill Hanson Randy Carpenter Visitors Present Mike Pentecost Doug Minarik Bill Hanson Amy Bell Shelly Engler B. ___________ Sam Mudlin ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of February 23, 2005. Mr. Hedglin stated that at the bottom of page 4, the Motion was seconded by Mr. Krueger not Mr. Hedglin. MOTION: Mr. Krueger moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes with the requested correction. The motion carried 7-0. ITEM 3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chairperson Smith asked for volunteers as DRB officers. None came forth. The DRB voted to retain the current officers, Chairperson – Dawn Smith and Vice Chairperson – Bill Hanson. ITEM 4. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liason to the DRB – Jami Morris. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW A. First Security Bank CUP/COA #Z-05023 (Ehreth) Cottonwood Road * A Conditional Use Permit Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a new, two-story branch bank with leased space on the second floor and related site improvements. Mr. Hanson abstained from voting so that he could present the project. Bill Hanson, Amy Bell, and Shelly Engler joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Ben Ehreth presented the Staff Report noting the zoning on the site was BP (Business Park). He noted external seating was a typical condition placed on proposed projects. Mr. Hanson stated the total square footage of the proposed structure was 16,000 square feet on two floors. He stated a key issue with the site was where the access would be located. He stated the site was 450 feet deep, long, and due to its dimensions the City Engineering Department only allowed one access. He stated the applicant would have to file a formal Amended Plat Application to allow for “right-in”, “right-out” access to the property. He stated they wanted the parking in the rear for screening and the site was constrained because of the circulation pattern. He stated a portion of the site might be subdivided out in the future. Ms. Bell described the colors and materials that would were proposed for the structures; including natural stone. Mr. Carpenter asked if the signage would be within the guidelines. Planner Ehreth responded Staff was requesting details of the proposed signage for review at a later date. Mr. Hanson stated the signage might be integrated with the plant growing in the southwest corner. Mr. Carpenter asked the setback from the Cottonwood Road right-of-way. Mr. Hanson responded it was a 40 foot setback including a ditch and utility easement. Mr. Carpenter asked if the applicant would rather have the structure closer to the street. Mr. Hanson responded the setback was prudent due to the future location of the extension of Cottonwood Road. Mr. Carpenter asked if there would be retention on the site. Mr. Hanson responded there was a drainage plan submitted. Mr. Carpenter asked what would be done with the retention ponds. Mr. Hanson responded they would be integrated into the landscaping and added they were trying to make an inundated site. Mr. Carpenter asked if the drive-through would be screened from Cottonwood Road. Planner Ehreth and Ms. Engler responded there would be vegetation, retaining walls, and berming to screen the drive-through. Mr. Hedglin asked for the schedule of improvements for Cottonwood Road. Planner Ehreth responded there was no real timeframe as it depended upon development along Cottonwood Road. Mr. Hedglin asked for the intent for access to the potentially subdivided portion. Mr. Hanson responded the City envisioned two shared access points along Cottonwood Road for the entire development. Chairperson Smith asked why there were eleven additional parking stalls depicted for the proposal. Planner Ehreth responded the applicant had factored bathrooms, hallways, and other facilities on the second floor that added parking stalls. Mr. Hanson responded the end result was a mere 7 stalls over the required amount. Chairperson Smith suggested getting rid of the parking along Huffine Lane. Mr. Hanson responded everything had intentionally been set back from Huffine Lane. Planner Ehreth added the application was in accordance with the newly adopted Design Objectives Plan. Mr. Carpenter stated he liked the building, he preferred not to see exposed parking on Main Street (Huffine Lane), he liked the layout, and the proposal would be a nice addition to the area. Mr. Krueger stated he agreed with Mr. Carpenter’s comments and he liked the proposed materials. Mr. Hedglin agreed with previous DRB comments and stated he appreciated the use of natural materials though the expense was greater. Mr. Howe stated the building looked nice, the site and structure had nice proportions; he stated he thought the structure would fit in well with the surrounding area. Mr. Thomas asked if Mr. Hanson had considered the site next to the Ridge Athletic Club. Mr. Hanson responded they had tried to use that site, but it had not been legitimately subdivided. Mr. Thomas asked if 18 by 18 panels of man made stone could be used on the structure. Mr. Hanson responded they could. Mr. Thomas stated the proposal looked great. Chairperson Smith stated she agreed with previous DRB comments; she liked the building and the location of the parking, but suggested reducing the asphalt as much as possible. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Hedglin seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for First Security Bank CUP/COA #Z-05023 with Staff conditions. The motion carried 6-0. B. Weissman Concept PUD #Z-05016 (Kozub) 1237 North Rouse Avenue * A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the re-development of the existing Weissman Steel site. Mike Pentecost and Doug Minarik joined the DRB. Planner I Susan Kozub presented the Staff Report noting the location of the site as well as the location of the Montana Avenue right-of-way. She stated the DRC had already reviewed the application and it was being reviewed concurrently with the Pre-Application. She listed the relaxations; i.e. setbacks, authorized uses, excess of retail space in M-1 zoning, etc. She stated the PUD needed 20 performance points and Staff recommended off-site improvements for open space. She stated Staff felt there should be more options for pedestrians and bicycles and suggested pedestrian pathways. She stated the existing mature trees were too close together, they interfered with overhead power lines and existing sewer and water lines, and some trees would have to be removed for public safety. She stated Staff wanted to see a unified architectural theme for the PUD. She stated there would be 131 parking stalls, but most would be screened as they were located on the interior of the site. She stated the site was within three Entryway Overlay Corridors and the project fell within the jurisdiction of the newly adopted Design Objectives Plan. She stated Staff was excited to see the reuse of the existing industrial site. Mr. Pentecost stated the anchor building on the site would be the gymnastics building (the old steel building). He stated the site would maintain some of the industrial feel that already exists. He stated they would try to maintain all of the structures as they are with the exception of the corner structure that would be renovated and modified to meet requirements for new seismic codes. He added there was a lot of interest in the project. Mr. Hanson asked if the parking was flexible as the uses of the structures were not yet determined. Planner Kozub responded parking was flexible, Staff would support a parking relaxation and the parking would be further evaluated in the next stage of the proposal. Mr. Hanson asked why there was leftover space. Mr. Pentecost responded that a conversation with a potential purchaser led to the possibility of a physical connection between two structures and space was left to accommodate that connection. Mr. Hanson stated the little parking pod just east of the small square building seemed strained and suggested a flow-through could be created to ease those constraints. Mr. Hanson asked if some of the parking in the rear would be blocked by truck deliveries. Mr. Pentecost responded those spaces would be blocked. Mr. Thomas asked the use of the existing building. Mr. Pentecost responded it was Weissman Steel and Hardware and previously grain delivery buildings. Mr. Thomas asked if there would be Environmental Protection Agency abatement done on the site. Mr. Pentecost responded there had been a study done and they had found asbestos in tiles, but no overall risk had been ascertained. Mr. Carpenter asked the size of the courtyard area. Planner Kozub responded the plaza was approximately 45’ by 80’ feet. Mr. Minarik added the ice rink would likely be removed from the proposal. Mr. Hedglin asked if the engineer gave any indication that the bay intersecting with the site triangle could be shaved or pulled back to provide better access and visibility at the intersection of Oak Street. Mr. Pentecost responded that Bridger Engineering had looked at the structure and said it was functional as is, but one bay could be removed. Mr. Hedglin stated he was glad to see the reuse of site, he thought there was a slight safety hazard at the intersection of Oak Street, and he supported the project if the footprint of the building inside the sight triangle was moved back. He added that he supported a unified architectural theme for development. Mr. Hanson stated he supported the adaptive reuse of the existing structures and it was a positive addition to that area of town. He suggested relieving the strained areas he had mentioned earlier and reducing the number of parking stalls. He stated the stretch of green space could be pushed over and butted to Rouse Avenue as a solid bank of parking to soften the base of the building and create usable open space. Mr. Howe stated he was glad to see rejuvenation in that area and he supported the project. Mr. Thomas stated he was supportive of the proposal and the reuse of the site. Mr. Carpenter agreed with previous DRB comments. He stated the layout was a little clumsy due to the location of the parking, the plaza seemed less usable when surrounded by parking stalls; but, overall, he supported the proposal. Mr. Krueger agreed with previous DRB comments and stated he supported the proposal and looked forward to seeing nest phase of development. Chairperson Smith stated the Gymnastics structure as the “anchor use” for the development did not work well with the proposed layout of the parking lot as it was a use designed specifically for children. She stated the site did not flow safely for children crossing the lot and suggested some playground equipment instead of an ice skating rink. Mr. Pentecost responded the flow of the parking lot would be a major consideration. Mr. Hedglin added that the schedule of the Gymnastics Studio (4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) made it inappropriate for a pub to be located in the same development. ITEM 6. 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 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. ________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board