HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-23-04 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 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
Christopher Livingston Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner
Carol Asleson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Dawn Smith
Bill Hanson
Joseph Thomas
Mel Howe
Visitors Present
Chris Budeski
Gene Graf
ITEM 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A. CHAIRPERSON
Dawn Smith
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Bill Hanson
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2004
Vice Chairperson Hanson called for corrections or additions to the minutes of February 24, 2004.
MOTION: Ms. Asleson moved, Mr. Livingston seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0.
Mr. Howe and Ms. Smith entered the proceedings.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Gallatin Center PUD Mods #Z-04033 (Windemaker)
North 19th Avenue between Baxter Lane and Valley Center Drive
* A request to modify the approved Planned Unit Development to allow an additional freestanding sign.
Gene Graf and Chris Budeski joined the DRB. Planner Windemaker presented the Staff Report, noting the locations of the existing signs and the request for an additional entryway pylon
sign. She stated Staff had requested a master signage plan for the PUD. She added she would be suggesting a condition for DRC that would limit the total number of entryway pylon signs.
Mr. Graf stated the project was “in the process” when the first signs were approved and there had become a need for the tenants and customers of the subdivision to have signage at the
accesses. He added there would be four total entryway pylon signs requested.
Mr. Budeski stated the original layout for Gallatin Center was substantially different from what it was today. He stated there were fewer major tenants, and the number of other tenants
was unknown on the future lots. Mr. Budeski illustrated how the proposed signs would match the existing ones.
Ms. Smith asked Planner Windemaker if the sign request was not in conjunction with a PUD, how the signs would be addressed. Planner Windemaker responded there would be one freestanding
sign for each lot. She added the size allowable for the signs in a PUD were larger, but there were to be fewer of them.
Mr. Livingston asked if one of the proposed signs was in the original proposal. Mr. Graf responded that two entryway pylon signs were included in the first proposal.
Ms. Smith asked for the distance between each of the four signs proposed for North 19th Avenue. Planner Windemaker responded the distance between each sign averaged 1,000+ feet.
Mr. Livingston stated he thought the signage was strategically placed, with regard to the speed limit on North 19th Avenue, so the consumer could miss a sign and still not miss the location
completely.
Ms. Smith stated she was indifferent about the proposal, but was worried that the signs would look exactly the same and be placed the same distance from the street. She suggested varying
the sign design, distance from the street, and height. She added the out parcel would have at least one sign and probably two.
Mr. Thomas stated the future of the street, it being an entryway corridor, made it seem that the avenue would become cluttered with signage. He stated he was indifferent about the proposal
as well, and suggested just one sign at Cattail Street and North 19th Avenue. He added he thought a total of two signs would be sufficient, but there would not be enough square footage
to represent the tenants so it was irrelevant.
Ms. Asleson stated she agreed with Ms. Smith and thought people would get confused if all the signs were alike.
Vice Chairperson Hanson stated the DRB concurred North 19th Avenue was different than they would like because the speed limit was fifty miles per hour. He stated he thought there should
be clearly marked entrances and tenant spaces. He stated he was supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions.
Mr. Graf stated he thought the sign at Cattail Street should have continuity with the rest of Gallatin Center’s signs. He stated he did not know what some of the signs would look like
as no
specific tenants have arranged to occupy those retail spaces. He added the signs could be completely different. Ms. Smith stated the signs could not be completely different because
the DRB was approving only the ones proposed. Planner Windemaker added the applicant would have to return to the DRB if any other signage was proposed.
Mr. Graf stated he did not think the general sign concept was a problem. Planner Windemaker responded Staff did not specify a certain color for the signs in the conditioning of the
project. She added only the conditioned style, square footage, design, height, backlighting, and materials used to construct the signs had been specified.
Ms. Smith stated the DRB had to assume the project would be developed as proposed.
MOTION: Mr. Livingston moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Gallatin Center PUD Mods #Z-04033 with Staff conditions and the addition of condition
#6) that the PUD shall be limited to a maximum of four entryway pylon signs along the entire North 19th Avenue frontage. Ms. Smith suggested the signs be less alike. Mr. Budeski stated
there was no reason why the signs couldn’t be different colors. Ms. Asleson stated the landscaping would break up any conformity caused by the signs themselves. Motion carried 4-2
with Ms. Smith and Mr. Thomas in opposition.
ITEM 5. 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
There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 4:17 p.m.
_____________________________________________
Dawn Smith, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board