Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-04 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Bill Hanson Jami Morris, Associate Planner Christopher Livingston Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Randy Carpenter Mel Howe Dawn Smith Visitors Present Bob Griffith The DRB went to Item 5, Project Review first, as a courtesy to the people involved with Outback Steakhouse/Duck’s Lounge. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW A. Outback Steakhouse CUP #Z-03298 (Morris/Stodola) 2241 East Valley Center Road * A Conditional Use Permit Application to allow the construction of a 6,270 square foot restaurant with attached 2,302 square foot Duck's Lounge Bar and related site improvements. Bob Griffith joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report, noting the project was located on the southern portion of the lot. She noted the project was reviewed as a CUP because of on-site consumption of alcohol in the Duck’s Lounge portion of the structure. She reviewed ADR Staff conditions. Mr. Livingston asked for the heights hotels surrounding the proposed location. Planner Morris responded the heights were approximately 44 feet and 52 feet, and the precise information was in the Staff Report. She added Country Inn & Suites, which is proposed for the same general area, had requested a deviation for height. Mr. Livingston asked for the location of the landscaping features. Planner Morris and Mr. Griffith indicated the locations on the site plan. Mr. Hanson asked if ADR Staff condition #2 (neon lighting) meant they were required to screen the light source from direct view. Planner Morris stated it was and the DRB could clarify the neon lighting specifications in their recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Hanson stated he saw no parking calculation in the Staff Report with regard to the shared parking arrangements with C’Mon Inn and Country Inn & Suites. Planner Morris responded there were 78 required parking stalls, and 94 stalls proposed. Mr. Hanson asked if the calculation included handicapped parking. Planner Morris responded that it did. Mr. Hanson asked if the parking would then require a deviation to exceed the maximum parking permitted. Planner Morris responded they were allowed 4 more spaces than they had proposed. Mr. Hanson asked if the drive shown above the “site-plan note” would eventually be constructed. Planner Morris responded it was only an option as there may be a shared parking arrangement. She added the parking and accesses would be resolved by Final Site Plan. Chairperson Smith asked if the optional access would decrease the amount of landscaping. Planner Morris responded it would not. Chairperson Smith asked if one access from Valley Center Road had been established. Planner Morris responded that access was something that would have to be worked out with the applicant and the adjoining properties in the shared parking agreement. Chairperson Smith asked what structures the steakhouse would face. Planner Morris responded the steakhouse mostly faced the C’Mon Inn, and was slightly turned toward Valley Center Road. Chairperson Smith concluded the structure had no real visual frontage. Mr. Griffith stated the reason for the orientation and location of the structure on the site was due to the amount of parking they needed and the location of the water main. He stated the applicants were aware that the traditional “Outback” building would not be approvable in that location. He stated the Outback in Missoula had been slightly altered to be less visually impacting. Mr. Livingston stated he had two sets of drawings and asked if one depicted a typical Outback Steakhouse. Mr. Griffith responded that was the trademark design and colors used. Mr. Livingston asked how it was envisioned that the patio would ever be used. Mr. Griffith responded he could not answer that question as it was an Outback issue, and may ultimately be removed. Mr. Livingston suggested removing it. Mr. Hanson stated the access could only stack two cars before it was blocked off and asked if the applicant had explored any other options. Mr. Griffith responded he was not even sure the C’Mon Inn easements were approved with regard to the access in question. Mr. Carpenter asked if there were any real issues with the Outback Steakhouse in regard to signage. Mr. Griffith responded he thought the applicants would be willing to work with Staff on the colors and signage for the structure. Planner Morris presented plans for C’Mon Inn and Country Inn & Suites to show the DRB the existing and proposed location of accesses and parking arrangements. Chairperson Smith stated the patio as shown was not usable as outdoor seating as the entrance to the structure was directly across the patio. She asked if there was a possibility of any outdoor seating being proposed on the site. Mr. Griffith responded he did not see a problem with removing parking stalls and adding outdoor seating. Chairperson Smith asked if there was a monument sign proposed. Mr. Griffith responded that the original monument sign was not proposed in a quality location; therefore, they had decided to rely on wall mounted signs. Chairperson Smith asked what colors the applicant would be proposing. Mr. Griffith responded he knew the applicants would want their trademark (red, green, black) colors, but he thought they could propose natural wood siding and timbers on the front façade, using the trademark colors as more of an accent. Chairperson Smith added that franchise styles were strongly discouraged in the Unified Development Ordinance. She asked if the applicant had been given a chance to review ADR Staff condition #6 from the DRC meeting. Mr. Griffith responded he had and he would confer with Jeff Jones at Outback Steakhouse about the colors. He stated he did not think the applicant would keep the pitched roof in the proposal. Chairperson Smith asked why Duck’s Lounge had two front doors and the Outback Steakhouse had only one. Mr. Griffith stated the referenced entrances were stock entrances located on the sides of the structure. He added the Outback entrance design would be mirrored by Duck’s Lounge, only larger. Mr. Livingston asked if there would be mechanical equipment on the ground. Mr. Griffith responded they were discussing putting the larger mechanical equipment on the ground to screen it from I-90. Mr. Howe stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and Staff conditions regarding the colors used for the proposal. Mr. Livingston stated he concurred with ADR Staff conditions; however, condition #6 was too open-ended. He stated he felt it was a franchised building and suggested it look less like a franchise structure. He stated it seemed to him that there would be more parking if the structure was rotated 90 degrees, and the patio might be more useful as well. He stated he thought the proposal had ample parking and the shared parking gave them more freedom to manipulate and improve the site plan. He added that the dumpster enclosure lacked durability. Mr. Hanson stated the applicant could pursue 25% over the required amount of parking without requesting a deviation. He stated the access from Valley Center Road was going to be problematic due to its two-car width. Planner Morris responded that eventually there would be controlled medians from Catron Street to the north edge of the property. Mr. Hanson suggested the access point be relocated to a point that would allow the stacking of three or four vehicles. Mr. Hanson asked, if the drive was relocated, could the landscaping be increased to create an outdoor seating area on the corner. Mr. Griffith responded it might be possible. Mr. Hanson stated he thought the building could be rotated slightly, not necessarily a full 90 degrees. Mr. Carpenter asked if the building were rotated 90 degrees, would it still have the necessities, such as the loading dock, parking, accesses, etc. Mr. Griffith stated he would look into it; however, the loading dock width would be at risk in that situation. Chairperson Smith stated she felt there were a lot of unanswered questions in the proposal. She suggested the best solution would be to continue the DRB discussion to the next meeting to allow the applicant to submit a more detailed and accurate site plan. She suggested pulling the drive access back so there was only one row of parking between the road and the structure. She stated she did not support the access from Valley Center Road as it was depicted on the plan. She suggested adding railings or planters to add relief to the structure. Mr. Hanson stated Staff’s conditions which affected the architecture, colors, and parking requirements were all in question because the proposal was so preliminary. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to continue the Outback Steakhouse CUP #Z-03298 discussion until the 2/24/04 DRB meeting. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS A. CHAIRPERSON B. VICE CHAIRPERSON Election of officers was postponed until more DRB members were present. ITEM 3. SELECTION OF DESIGN OBJECTIVES PLAN REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (R.F.P.) COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE Mr. Livingston volunteered to be the committee representative from the DRB. ITEM 4. MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2004 Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of January 27, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Livingston requested corrections on Page 5, paragraph 6 where Mr. Livingston asked Mr. Headley “the amount of the overall budget of the project,” he asked to substitute “construction costs for building were $7.9 million which meant the library was twenty three percent over budget.” Mr. Livingston stated on page 6, paragraph 4, “He stated he thought the tower anchored the plaza, and the slickness and smoothness of the tower was more in line with the way he felt about moving the building closer to the street.” He intended to say “when they removed the tower from the proposal, there was no justification for the plaza. Since it looked better without the tower, why not remove the plaza and bring the structure closer to Main Street.” MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Livingston seconded, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried 5-0. 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. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. _____________________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board