Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-27-04 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2004 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice Chairperson Bill Hanson called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Joseph Thomas Jami Morris, Associate Planner Christopher Livingston Susan Kozub, Assistant Planner Randy Carpenter Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mel Howe Carol Asleson Bill Hanson Visitors Present Scott Carpenter Mark Headley J.R. Reger Alice Meister Brenda Davis ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2004 Vice Chairperson Hanson called for corrections or additions to the minutes of January 13, 2004. MOTION: Ms. Asleson moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes with two corrections. Mr. Howe stated on page 5, paragraph 6 he had asked Planner Windemaker a question regarding human scale and he would like to see the explanation included in the minutes. Ms. Asleson stated on page 7, paragraph 1 her statement was written incorrectly and needed to be rewritten. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Lux Tristar Tower SP/COA #Z-03306 (Kozub) 145 Simmental Way * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 160 foot, lattice-type communication tower with an eight carrier capacity and related site improvements. J.R. Reger joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Susan Kozub presented the Staff Report, noting Staff had identified concerns regarding mechanical screening and protection of mature vegetation. She reviewed the recommended conditions. Mr. Livingston asked why the previous telecommunications tower proposal was not approved by the City Commission. Planner Kozub responded that City Commission required the planning office to restructure the ordinance to address identified issues. Mr. Reger responded the proposed structure itself was different from the first proposal (monopole, and not of lattice type design) and the City Commission had denied the proposal 3-2. Planner Kozub stated the tower had an eight carrier capacity. Mr. Reger added each carrier could accommodate 12 four foot by one foot antennas and it would take 45 different antennas to fill the tower to capacity, which was extremely unlikely and far into the future. He stated the equipment would be housed inside 5 storage units. He stated the Landowners Association had denied his tower. He stated there were six separate companies, potentially including the City Fire and Police Departments, which propose to put their antennas on the tower. He added the proposed tower was a lattice-type tower as preferred by the Unified Development Ordinance. Vice Chairperson Hanson asked Planner Kozub discuss the Landowners Association denial. Planner Kozub responded the city had no legal responsibility for enforcement of property owner’s covenants, per Section 18.02.100. Mr. Howe asked if the DRB should determine if the covenants were in effect. Planner Kozub responded the DRB could discuss the covenants, but the covenants could not be included as a condition of approval. Mr. Howe stated he thought it would be unfair to deny approval based on the covenants. Mr. Livingston stated companies were referenced in the submittal materials indicating an 80 foot tall tower as being adequate for their services. He asked if the proposed tower height could be reduced by half. Mr. Reger responded that not all of the tenants of the tower could function at a reduced height, and some of the antennas needed a “line of sight” to buildings in the Bozeman area. He added the height decrease would increase the chance of requiring another tower to serve the same area as the proposed, taller tower. Mr. Livingston confirmed that the “line of sight” made it important for the tower to be at the height and in the location it was proposed. Mr. Reger stated the main factor for choosing a site was it was difficult to get a tower approved in Bozeman other than in M-1 Zoning Districts. Mr. Livingston stated distribution made the proposed location an important one for the tenants of the tower. Mr. Reger responded that Verizon Wireless wanted the North 19th Avenue area location to eliminate the “drop call” issue that had been occurring more frequently. Mr. Carpenter asked if Staff was satisfied with the proposed location of the tower. Planner Kozub responded the applicant had to submit a study by a Licensed Radio Frequency Engineer prior to Final Site Plan Approval. Mr. Carpenter asked if the engineering studies were done on an application by application basis. Planner Kozub responded the studies were required separately for each application, but it would be helpful to have a city-wide engineering study done. Mr. Carpenter stated he thought a monopole tower was less obtrusive than a lattice tower. Mr. Reger responded Associate Planner Saunders had told him the Unified Development Ordinance. stated the city would prefer a lattice-type tower. Mr. Thomas asked if a monopole tower would require the same height. Mr. Reger responded it would. Ms. Asleson asked how big around a monopole was. Mr. Reger stated it was 6 feet in diameter at the base and tapered to 1½ feet in diameter at the top. Vice Chairperson Hanson asked about the North 19th Avenue Entryway Overlay Guidelines, Section B.2, pointing out that the view from North 19th Avenue would be obstructed. Planner Kozub responded that one tower in that area would be better than several smaller ones, and screening a tower in that location would be difficult due to flat topography and a lack of mature vegetation. Vice Chairperson Hanson asked Mr. Reger if he had explored any locations west of North 19th Avenue. Mr. Reger responded that any site west of North 19th Avenue would fall outside of the carrier area. He added he had not explored sites to the west as the object was to be as near town to the east as possible. Mr. Livingston asked whether Lewis & Clark Subdivision was commercial. Vice Chairperson Hanson responded it was a commercial development. Ms. Asleson asked what was proposed beyond the six foot radius around the tower. Mr. Reger stated nothing would be done beyond the fence at the six foot radius. Mr. Livingston stated the information on distribution areas and locations of towers did not include how the distribution of signal in Bozeman worked. He added he would have liked a diagram which indicated the placement of existing towers, what areas they covered, and where future towers would need to be located to be efficient. He added it seemed the proposed tower would address the need in the proposed location, but he wondered if the tower would address future growth and its necessary capacity. He stated his main comment was that some third party should study the wireless system and then propose a plan to accommodate the needed tower sites. Mr. Carpenter stated he concurred with Mr. Livingston and added there were companies who research telecommunications operations in order to help reduce the number of towers. Ms. Asleson stated she would like to see the tower set further west (possibly on the Mandeville Property) due to the proposed location lying in the North 19th Avenue Entryway Overlay Corridor. She stated that, even though the code requirements would all be met, she suggested the tower be relocated due to its visual impact. Vice Chairperson Hanson stated he had driven the highway and North 19th Avenue and he had struggled with the proposal as it “distracted from distant views”. He added that when North 19th Avenue curves to the west at Bridger Peaks Town Center, the orientation of the driver would be directly at the tower’s proposed site. He added, from that standpoint, he would have a difficult time approving the proposal based on the Entryway Corridor Guideline B.2. Mr. Reger stated the location was chosen because multiple companies had requested that specific area. He added the industrial zoned location was perfect, and there weren’t many industrial locations in Bozeman. He stated he could create a pincushion of many smaller towers, and make the same amount of money, but thought the number of towers should be restricted if possible. He stated there was a federal right for telecommunications companies to provide their services, and the proposed tower would support the north side of Bozeman well into the future. He stated the Mandeville property housed an “unfriendly” tower with only one tenant allowed. He stated he tried to engineer a tower that would minimize the “distraction from distant views” and the tower would not be at capacity for at least ten years. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Lux Tristar Tower SP/COA #Z-03306 with Staff’s three conditions of approval. Ms. Asleson expressed concern regarding the distraction the tower would cause as seen from North 19th Avenue. Mr. Howe responded that the cross beams for signalization on North19th Avenue were just as distracting at first, but a person eventually grew accustomed to seeing them, just as one would grow accustomed to seeing a communications tower. Mr. Livingston stated he agreed that the ordinance language suggested the visibility from North 19th Avenue should be preserved and he could find no justification that the height of the proposed tower was necessary, or the best solution. Vice Chairperson Hanson stated the entryway guidelines were written to improve the visual impact of Bozeman. He stated the North 19th Avenue Entryway Corridor was not very wide, and the proposed location could be relocated outside that area and beyond entryway corridor requirements. Mr. Thomas stated the guidelines were set up to preserve the view of the area surrounding Bozeman. Motion was denied 5-1. Mr. Howe was in support of the motion. Mr. Carpenter, Ms. Asleson, Mr. Thomas, Vice Chairperson Hanson, and Mr. Livingston were in opposition. Mr. Carpenter stated he would have been more open if a monopole tower was proposed. MOTION: Ms. Asleson moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of denial for Lux Tristar Tower SP/COA #Z-03306 due to its location in the North 19th Avenue Entryway Overlay Corridor and the Entryway Corridor Guidelines. Motion carried 5-1. Mr. Carpenter, Ms. Asleson, Mr. Thomas, Vice Chairperson Hanson, and Mr. Livingston were in support of the motion. Mr. Howe was in opposition. B. Bozeman Public Library Mods to FSP #Z-03246 (Morris) 626 East Main Street * Modifications to the Final Site Plan to eliminate the north tower of the approved 53,522+ square foot, two-story library structure with related site improvements. Mark Headley, Alice Meister, and Scott Carpenter joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report, noting the proposed changes would modify the north façade and the seating area on the southeast side of the structure. Scott Carpenter stated the reason for this DRB review was that the cost estimate of the project was over budget. He stated the applicant had met with Sara Folger and Gary Vohdenal and had completed a cost estimate with regard to grants. He stated the initially proposed plaza and trail system could not be supported with the grants available. Mr. Headley stated the remediation processes had put the project over budget. Ms. Meister stated they were still waiting for approval from D.E.Q. and there would be additional costs associated with that approval as well. Scott Carpenter stated the project was 1.7 million dollars over the approved cost of construction, and a major cut-back would be the P.V. system. Scott Carpenter outlined additional modifications to the site plan including asphalt that had been pulled forward and an island of trees that had been eliminated. He stated the item on the chopping block was the tower and that was what the DRB was there to discuss. Mr. Headley added that the unbroken view of the Bridger Mountains, without the tower, would be enhanced. Mr. Headley stated the DRB requested seating areas along the south side, but with budget cuts, the seating was very difficult to achieve. He stated the area required for emergency access on the south side could possibly double as a removable seating area. Mr. Headley stated he was attempting to get this project out to bid in the next couple of weeks due to there being no projects of that size in the same time frame, so he needed these items resolved for an accurate bid. Ms. Asleson stated she had no problems with either of the requests for modifications from the applicant. Mr. Thomas asked why the path to the reading area was headed east in a circuitous route instead of straight south. Scott Carpenter responded the concern was for security reasons. Mr. Headley showed the DRB members the proposed stone materials. He added the applicant was leaning toward using granite. He stated the applicant had investigated various brick colors and patterns. Mr. Livingston asked the amount of the overall budget of the project. Mr. Headley responded $13.8 million. Mr. Livingston added that the construction costs for building were $7.9 million which meant the library was twenty three percent over budget. Vice Chairperson Hanson stated the tower anchored the building as the signature of the structure to the public. He asked if the applicant had looked into increasing the height of the corner element to maintain that signature. Vice Chairperson Hanson suggested simplifying the roof, increasing the height, and adjusting for lower lighting conditions with more interior lighting and skylights. Scott Carpenter responded he had considered increasing the height of the remaining tower. Vice Chairperson Hanson stated the entry canopy seemed weak and suggested that element should extend further into the glass and pick up the curve of the façade and the plaza. Scott Carpenter responded the canopy was jutting out, yet curving into the tower. Vice Chairperson Hanson stated it could be a modern design element. On the matter of the outdoor seating area, Vice Chairperson Hanson stated he could not see how public access was possible in some areas, and the trail crossed the creek, thus removing people from the pocket areas on the southeast side. Mr. Headley stated the CTEP money could be tied into the pocket areas for public use. Mr. Thomas stated people would use those areas regardless of whether it was developed for public use. Mr. Headley added they were budgeting for the bridges as well. Vice Chairperson Hanson stated he thought it was, overall, a great project. He asked if the plaza was part of the base bid. Mr. Scott Carpenter responded it was. Ms. Asleson stated she was in support of the proposed modifications. Mr. Carpenter stated he was not bothered by the removal of the tower and towers were becoming an architectural cliché. He stated he would urge them not to do anything with the pocket areas in the back of the building until they could determine how they would be used. Mr. Livingston stated the proposed front elevation was better than in the initial proposal, forming a modern line for the structure. Mr. Livingston added when they removed the tower from the proposal, there was no longer any justification for the plaza. Since it looked better without the tower, why not remove the plaza and bring the structure closer to Main Street. Mr. Howe stated he thought the building looked better without the tower and would age better as he thought towers could go out of style relatively quickly. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for the Bozeman Public Library Mods to FSP #Z-03246 to the City Commission as requested. Motion carried 5-1 with Mr. Livingston in opposition. 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. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m. _____________________________________________ Bill Hanson, Vice Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board