HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-24-04 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2004
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:54 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Christopher Livingston Jami Morris, Associate Planner
Carol Asleson David Skelton, Senior Planner
Dawn Smith Allyson Bristor, Historic Preservation Planner
Mel Howe Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Visitors Present
Jimmy Grisham
Phil Montgomry
Randy Twist
Bob Griffith
Gene Graf
George Sheban
Jeff Good
Linda Bell
Chris Budeski
Eric Boswell
ITEM 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS (Continued from 2/10/04)
A. CHAIRPERSON
B. VICE CHAIRPERSON
Postponed until next meeting or until all DRB members are present.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 2004
Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of February 10, 2004.
MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Livingston seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
A. Outback Steakhouse CUP #Z-03298 (Morris)(Continued from 2/10/04)
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.
Eric Boswell and Bob Griffith joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report, noting the DRC (Fire Department) would not support the relocation of the access
as suggested in the previous DRB review. She stated condition #7 could be eliminated as it was addressed on the updated site plan. Mr. Boswell stated the whole building would have
a wainscot, they added the covered walkway facing the C’Mon Inn, some of the gables had been raised, and there were exaggerated sills proposed to emphasize the windows.
Ms. Asleson suggested the east elevation could use more detailing as it faced Interstate 90. She stated, over all, the landscape was acceptable and recommended the flowering crabs next
to the sidewalk be exchanged for fruitless vegetation. She stated the applicants should be aware that some of the proposed shrubs would grow to six feet. She stated she would like
to see repetition and balance in the design of the vegetation. She added they should be more aware of the mature heights and maintenance of the proposed vegetation. She stated she
would like to see more evergreens proposed due to the length of winter.
Mr. Livingston stated he would have preferred to have an outdoor seating area located somewhere on the site. He stated his comments when DRB first reviewed the proposal were based on
rotating the building to accommodate for an outdoor seating area. He stated the new proposal had only changed slightly, but over all, with the exception of the brick facades, nothing
had been sufficiently altered to lessen the effect of a franchised structure. He stated the brick was not substantial enough to remove the structure from the franchise category.
Mr. Howe stated he agreed with Ms. Asleson’s observation regarding the east elevation being too blank. He stated the east elevation could be “dolled up”, even if it was with vines.
He stated he agreed the building looked like a franchise structure.
Chairperson Smith stated she was expecting more substantial changes to the site plan and was disappointed in the new submittal. She stated she appreciated the effort made by proposing
wainscot, but the north and east elevations were very bland. She stated the DRB had suggested outdoor seating and this change was not depicted, in any manner, on the site plan. She
stated she felt the access as proposed was more of a danger than the Fire Department realized.
MOTION: Mr. Livingston moved, Chairperson Smith seconded, to forward a recommendation of denial for Outback Steakhouse CUP #Z-03298 to the City Commission. The motion carried 4-0.
B. Gallatin Center, Lot 12 SP #Z-04007 (Skelton)
2806-2941 Max Avenue
* A Site Plan Application to allow the construction of a 140,480 square foot retail center on 13.30 acres with related site improvements.
Randy Twist, Gene Graf, Jeff Good, and Chris Budeski joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report, noting the Planning Director would make the final decision
on the project. He stated there was the potential for future expansions of the retail tenants along the west elevation of the building that could increase the total gross square footage
to approximately 140,480 sq. ft. He stated Mr. Good had addressed the issues of not exceeding the parking requirements and need for additional interior landscaping, as well as increasing
the amount of landscaping features. He stated if the structure increased to 140,000+ square feet, Staff would further address the need for additional interior landscaping and off-street
parking requirements at that time. He stated Mr. Good proposed modifications to the building façade and the architectural design of the proposed structure that would be ideal if the
expansion was situated on its own lot, however, the existing elements and design features from Bob Ward’s, Petsmart, Target, etc., should be incorporated into this site to tie them together.
Planner Skelton noted he did not expect significant modifications the west façade facing Cattail Creek Subdivision (i.e., rear of the building), but any banding done to the front elevations
should be carried around the back, as well as the articulation of parapet walls.
Mr. Good stated there would be 463 parking spaces and they were allowed 470 parking spaces. He stated there were façade changes including; free standing trellises and seating areas
flanking the entrances. He stated the proposal left room for two additional buildings. He stated the applicants intended to carry the banding around the side of the building that faced
Cattail Creek.
Mr. Budeski stated the sixth and seventh building would be constructed at a later date, so the bands could be continued around the end, but it would be a smooth faced wall, and temporary,
due to the shared wall between the fifth and future sixth buildings. He stated there were benches arranged sporadically throughout the proposal.
Mr. Livingston stated there did not seem to be a detailed landscape plan for the front area of the building. Mr. Budeski responded that Cashman’s Nursery was working on the site and
there would be more landscaping than depicted on the submittal materials.
Chairperson Smith asked for clarification of the intentions of the applicant with regard to the banding along the elevations of the building. Mr. Good responded there might be a color
change to accent the breaks in the façade of the building. Chairperson Smith asked if there would be a different pattern than four horizontal stripes. Mr. Good responded there would
be three different block colors. He suggested the accent color should be done in vertical treatments and the horizontal banding be done at the base of the building. Chairperson Smith
asked if they had thought of using different colors to separate the tenants in the building. Mr. Good responded it would be opening “Pandora’s Box” if the tenants were allowed the choice
of many different colors and he thought four main colors and one tile color for signs would be best. Mr. Budeski stated they had already started a theme with the existing structures,
and they did not want to adversely affect the decorum of the existing buildings. Chairperson Smith asked if the tubular design was only for one unit. Mr. Good responded, potentially,
the design could be used on one of the two tenant spaces that would not be constructed with this proposal. Chairperson Smith suggested the use of different and varying materials.
Ms. Asleson stated she agreed with Planner Skelton regarding the façade facing Cattail Creek Subdivision. She stated there was a lot of potential for a visual block between the industrial
and residential areas by installing a large area of landscaping. She stated she would like to see more detail on the site plan along the front façade to eliminate the difficulties of
snow-hidden planters. Mr. Budeski responded the planters would be used as snow storage areas so there would be less of a possibility of pedestrians stumbling into the snow-covered planters.
Ms. Asleson agreed the banding tied the development together and she would like to see a little more variation in color among tenants. She stated she would like to see more variation
on the skyline and suggested something be added in the middle of the proposal to make it less generic.
Mr. Howe stated he supported previous DRB comments, and Staff recommendations. He suggested forwarding a recommendation of approval to the City Commission.
Mr. Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and Staff recommendations. He stated he liked the planters and the option of using them as future parking spaces. He stated
with the façade being 1700 feet long, he would like to see the Gallatin Center Development in its entirety so the DRB could see the whole scope of the proposal. He stated he would like
to see a more sophisticated look than what was previously done and added he thought the applicant had moved in that direction. He suggested tonal changes in color would give the structure
a little more sophistication. He stated he would like to see more detailed landscaping on the site plan for the front of the structure. He stated, over all, he agreed with all comments
previously made by DRB members and Staff.
Chairperson Smith suggested they incorporate a variation in the banding and colors with subtle differences and tones. She stated she would prefer to see the addition of a different
material as an accent. She stated she would like to see the main crosswalk area extended to the width of the central landscaped area. Mr. Good responded his intention was a different
color of pavement on the main crosswalk. Chairperson Smith recommended the textured pavement in front of Albertson’s. Chairperson Smith stated she would like to see the flower beds
raised. Mr. Good responded they did not want the consumer to think of the flower beds as obstacles, and snow removal would damage elevated planters. Chairperson Smith stated she thought
the plants would be at greater risk if the flower beds were recessed.
MOTION: Mr. Livingston moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval of Gallatin Center, Lot 12 SP #Z-04007 to City Commission with 11 Staff conditions and the condition
of expanding the main crosswalk to the width of the central landscaped island. Motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 5. INFORMAL REVIEW
A. Williamson COA/ADR #Z-04010 (Bristor)
423 North Church Avenue
* A Certificate of Appropriateness Application with no deviations, requesting to lift the existing house to remove the inadequate foundation and form a new basement underneath, and
to extend the square footage of
the existing house by adding a new 2nd floor and 2-story, rear addition that creates an extensive change in design.
Dean Williamson and Linda Bell joined the DRB. Planner Bristor presented the Staff Report, noting the difficulties in that neighborhood, i.e. the Adams/Gould Appeal. She stated this
was a neighborhood that was eligible for National Historic Registration. She noted the second story would only be added above the southwest corner of the structure and not above the
whole first floor. She stated the building footprint was only increased by one foot.
Ms. Bell asked if there were any reviews available showing which houses were contributing to the neighborhood and which houses were not. Planner Bristor responded yes, the initial North
Church Avenue survey noted each house as either contributing or non-contributing, with 423 North Church being non-contributing. Currently, Montana Architectural and Historical Inventory
Files (1984) are used to help in determining which houses are contributing.
Mr. Williamson stated the structure needed substantial repair as there was no foundation, the roof sagged and leaked, and the pipes froze as there was virtually no insulation.
Mr. Howe asked if there were any indication that the neighbors would want to appeal the project. Planner Bristor responded that Mr. Williamson had been involving the neighbors from
the beginning and no objections had been forthcoming. Mr. Howe stated if the modifications were allowable, it was up to the Planning Department to enforce and the DRB was not authorized
to make a determination. Planner Bristor responded it was more of a preventative measure to try to assure the neighbors would not ultimately appeal the application.
Chairperson Smith stated she appreciated the proposal coming to the DRB. She stated the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan encouraged diverse neighborhoods, including buildings large and small.
She stated she thought the plans were unique and she noted she approved of them, including the use of stained glass. She stated she supported the project.
Ms. Asleson asked what the highest point was on the neighbor’s homes. Ms. Bell responded the home to the south was 30 feet tall and their proposal was only 28 feet tall. Ms Asleson
stated she supported the project.
Mr. Livingston asked if the porch extends into the setback. Planner Bristor responded it does not, the setback was changed January 1, 2004 to fifteen feet instead of twenty feet. Mr.
Livingston stated he thought the project was great. He stated the house was compromised and noncontributing and should be repaired. He stated he appreciated that the applicant did
not want to build the house out to the maximum and the proposal would be an excellent contribution to the street and the neighborhood. He stated it was good that the bulk of the building
was kept to the rear of the lot. He stated he thought it was important to realize the neighborhood was constantly evolving and he felt it was to the community’s benefit to bring the
proposal before the DRB.
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 7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 5:32 p.m.
_____________________________________________
Dawn Smith, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board