HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-13-04 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2004
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:43 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. In accordance with Section 18.62.010.C.2 ADR Staff served as DRB
alternates because a quorum would not otherwise be attained.
Members Present Staff Present
Dawn Smith Chris Saunders, Associate Planner
Susan Kozub, Planner I - Alternate Ben Ehreth, Assistant Planner
Allyson Bristor, Historic Preservation Planner - Alternate Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Dave Skelton, Senior Planner – Alternate
Visitors Present
Lowell Springer
Dave MacDonald
Steve Parks
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2004
Continued until the next meeting.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
A. Stoneridge Retail Center Lots 6 & 7 SP/COA #Z-04136 (Ehreth)
720 & 808 Stoneridge Drive
* A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of four office and/or retail buildings, for a total of 19,424 square feet, and related site
improvements.
Lowell Springer and Dave MacDonald joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Ben Ehreth presented the Staff Report noting Staff conditions and stated the project was consistent with the surrounding
developments. He suggested arranging the landscaping in the parking lot to screen some of the ground mechanical equipment.
Mr. Springer stated the applicant agreed with Staff conditions and suggestions. He stated when the parking was decreased the landscaping percentage would automatically increase to the
required amount. He stated he was concerned that the DRC was setting a precedent that no mechanical equipment could be placed in the front and back yard setbacks, but in this project
the equipment would be dealt with as the DRC recommended. He stated the design of the project was in keeping with the prior Stoneridge developments, maintaining their continuity, and
they did not want to go to another architectural style or character.
Chairperson Smith asked if the applicant had previously proposed another, large building in this location. Mr. Springer responded the Kit Yan Chu proposal had been halted by the owner
due to insufficient funding.
Chairperson Smith asked about the architectural features of the proposal, specifically the clock tower. Mr. MacDonald responded their intention was to create the same feel between the
buildings, a stronger presentation to the community, and a feeling that Stoneridge is a business center or complex. Chairperson Smith suggested using separate colors to distinguish
between buildings. Mr. Springer and Mr. MacDonald concurred. Chairperson Smith stated she saw no pedestrian pathways for the shared parking. Mr. Springer responded the applicant
supported the addition of pedestrian pathways.
Planner Kozub asked who owned the adjacent property as they would be responsible for installing half of the pedestrian access at one location. Mr. MacDonald responded that he knew the
adjacent property owner and he would have no problem with the continuation of the pedestrian walkway as long as he did not have to pay for it.
Planner Skelton asked why one of the entrances was so located. Mr. MacDonald responded they did not want any of the facades to look blank.
Planner Kozub asked what colors the trim and fascia would be. Mr. Springer indicated which items would be what colors. Mr. MacDonald added there would be color consistencies between
buildings, and the colors used would be brick, tan, and green.
Planner Kozub stated she agreed with Staff conditions with the addition of Chairperson Smith’s recommendation to continue the pedestrian pathways through the shared parking areas.
Planner Skelton stated he agreed with Staff conditions.
Chairperson Smith stated she agreed with Staff conditions and recommended a double sized, landscaped pathway on the eastern side of the lot. She stated she had a concern that the west
elevation was too bland. Mr. MacDonald responded that there was not enough façade on that elevation to worry about.
Chairperson Smith stated she thought there had been a proposal prior to this in which the accesses to the project were proposed too near each other. Planner Ehreth responded the engineering
department had reviewed the proposal and had seen no problems with the accesses as they were depicted in this proposal.
MOTION: Planner Kozub moved, Planner Bristor seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Stoneridge Retail Center Lots 6 & 7 SP/COA #Z-04136 with Staff Conditions and the
addition of condition #5) “the continuation of the pedestrian path through the shared parking to the north”. The motion carried 4-0 with ADR Staff providing three votes.
B. Parks Mods to PUD #Z-04148 (Saunders)
4010 Graf Street
* A request to modify the approved Sundance Springs Planned Unit Development to allow a covered porch to encroach 5.65 feet into the rear yard setback.
Steve Parks joined the DRB. Planner Saunders presented the Staff Memo noting there was one relaxation being requested by the applicant. He stated the original project was a PUD. He
stated the engineering company had made an error when staking the property which had caused the
encroachment of a porch into the rear yard setback. He stated the adjoining neighbors and Homeowners Association had already been contacted regarding the application and they had resolved
their concerns. He stated the request had very little impact on the fundamentals of the PUD, and if the applicant did any plantings in the PUD open space area it should remain in keeping
with the approved PUD landscaping plan. He added there should be an amendment to the covenants regarding that lot.
Planner Skelton asked if the Sundance Spring Homeowners Association had discussed the variance. Mr. Parks responded he and the homeowners (with their attorney) were writing up an agreement,
but he had not received it yet.
Chairperson Smith asked why they were doing a PUD instead of a variance. Planner Saunders responded the modifications to the PUD took three commissioners for approval instead of four.
He added the PUD method had a less stringent standard for approval and fewer legal issues that would need to be addressed.
Chairperson Smith asked who discovered the encroachment. Mr. Parks responded that one of the neighbors had let him know about the problem. Chairperson Smith stated she did not think
Montana had strict enough surveying statutes. Chairperson Smith stated she had no problem with the proposal, as it was accidental.
Planner Skelton suggested applicant plant deciduous trees to buffer the adjacent properties.
Chairperson Smith suggested not adding any landscaping as the adjacent owners might take issue. She asked if there should be any conditions for additional modifications to the porch.
Planner Kozub stated a condition like that would be difficult to enforce, and Planner Saunders suggested it should be left up to the Sundance Springs Homeowners Association to determine
the landscaping and the porch issues.
MOTION: Planner Skelton moved, Planner Kozub seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Parks Mods to PUD #Z-04148 with Staff conditions and, under
the criteria for consideration of a PUD under Item L, the relaxation was not found to be a harmful encroachment. The motion carried 4-0 with ADR Staff providing three votes.
C. Design Objectives Plan Draft 1 Review (Saunders)
Review and discuss draft document.
Planner Saunders addressed the DRB. Chairperson Smith stated she liked the layout, and the table of contents was very helpful. She stated there were inconsistencies in the wording.
She stated the use of some of the words was not strong enough for referencing guidelines. She stated the area north of West Main Street was going to have the largest population in
a few years and she felt the area had not been addressed thoroughly enough with regard to the pedestrian traffic flow. Planner Saunders responded the focus was on making incremental
improvements to the street corridor. Chairperson Smith asked what the “furthest reaches of ….” meant. Planner Saunders responded that as the city limits grew, so did the jurisdiction
of the entryway corridor. Chairperson Smith stated she thought the photos were good, but there was excessive use of the photograph of the building on Oak Street and she thought there
shouldn’t be any favoritism alluded to. She asked who had determined whether or not a sign was historic. Planner Saunders responded there were criteria in the ordinance that determined
the historical significance of a
sign that were difficult to meet (i.e. same location of business for a large number of years and City Commission action). Chairperson Smith asked if curb cuts would be eliminated.
Planner Saunders responded there were discussions regarding aggregation of accesses with re-development. He noted the old Holiday Gas Station on North 7th Avenue that removed two of
three North 7th Avenue accesses.
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 5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 4:52 p.m.
________________________________
Dawn Smith, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board