HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-04 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2004
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:39 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Dawn Smith Susan Kozub, Planner I
Brian Krueger Jami Morris, Associate Planner
Christopher Livingston Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Scott Hedglin
Visitors Present
Dennis Foreman
Shaun Shahan
Don Cape, Jr.
Don Cape, Sr.
Deb Kane
Mike Promisco
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2004
Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of July 27, 2004.
MOTION: Mr. Livingston moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
A. Tsavo Café CUP/COA/DEV #Z-04186 (Kozub)
622 West Mendenhall Street
* A Conditional Use Permit Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations to allow the sale of beer and wine and renovations to the existing building including a 359
square foot addition, new fenced patio, and minor revisions to the parking lot.
Deb Kane joined the DRB. Planner I Susan Kozub presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was a CUP because the cafe would be serving beer and wine. She stated a drive access on
Mendenhall Street would be removed and three deviations were requested by the applicant. She gave the reasons the requested deviations were supported by Staff and added Staff would
require a shared parking agreement be recorded at the Clerk and Recorders office for the parking deviation requested. She noted there had been no public comment regarding the application
and the DRC recommended conditional approval of the proposal.
Mr. Krueger asked about the fence height and the size of the patio waterfall feature. Planner Kozub responded Ms. Kane would answer those questions in her presentation.
Chairperson Smith asked if any businesses on North 7th Avenue maintained the required 25 foot setback. Planner Kozub stated most did not as the property line in some instances extended
all the way to the curb and some properties lacked enough space to maintain the setback.
Ms. Kane stated the design of the proposal came from a National Park in Kenya, Africa. She stated the applicant was bringing in artifacts from Africa, including tusks to be used for
the logo. She stated the proposed fence would be four feet tall and tie in with the existing retaining wall. She stated there would be an abundance of landscaping (mountain ash, quick
growing vines, etc.) to give the outdoor seating area a kind of jungle setting and the waterfall would be four or five feet tall.
Mr. Livingston asked what use was proposed for the upstairs. Ms. Kane responded the upstairs would be for the business owner’s use.
Mr. Hedglin asked for an estimated number of patrons that would be using the drive-thru. Ms. Kane responded the drive-thru would cater mostly to call-ahead orders and added the emphasis
was on summer business using the outdoor patio. Mr. Hedglin asked if Staff had issues with the ingress and egress being so near the intersection. Planner Kozub responded the proposal
was an improvement to the existing ingress and egress situation. She added there would be a one-way access to the site on Mendenhall Street.
Mr. Livingston stated the project was great for an existing building and he supported the project with Staff conditions.
Mr. Krueger stated he appreciated the applicant’s effort to maintain the existing historic setback and landscaping and he was concerned with the installation of a solid fence around
the patio.
Mr. Hedglin suggested the addition match the existing siding. He stated he was concerned with regard to the ingress and egress on the site, but he supported the project with Staff conditions.
Chairperson Smith stated she supported the project with Staff conditions.
MOTION: Mr. Livingston moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Tsavo Café CUP/COA/DEV #Z-04186 with Staff conditions #1 and #2.
The motion carried 4-0.
B. Snowload Condos CUP/COA #Z-04199 (Morris)
2165 Durston Road
* A Conditional Use Permit Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of five two-story, mixed-use office/apartment buildings and a new shared parking
lot for the church.
Shawn Shahan, Dennis Foreman, and Mike Promisco joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report noting Staff conditions. She stated the DRB could help decide
where the scored and pigmented pavement should be located.
Mr. Hedglin asked if the buildings on the site had separation. Planner Morris responded the required separation was six feet. Mr. Hedglin asked if there were requirements for outdoor
recreation areas. Planner Morris responded there was a requirement for 150 square feet of open space per dwelling unit and Staff had recommended outdoor seating areas. Mr. Foreman
responded that open space was required with the subdivision.
Mr. Livingston asked if the 150 square feet of open space per dwelling unit was depicted on the site plan. Planner Morris responded the open space was not depicted. Mr. Livingston
asked if the site plan depicted one piece of property. Planner Morris responded part of the property was a tract and part was a lot with one owner for all of the property.
Mr. Krueger asked what would be an appropriate use for the 150 square feet of open space. Planner Morris responded Staff was open to suggestions as long as they were “active recreation”
oriented. Mr. Krueger asked for the approximate amount of landscaping shown on the site plan. Planner Morris stated she thought about 7% with the removal of some of the paved areas
and replacement with landscaping.
Chairperson Smith asked if the landscaping point requirements included the parking lot. Planner Morris responded that the required parking landscaping was a separate calculation above
and beyond the landscaping point requirements. Chairperson Smith suggested some buffering at the rear of the site. Planner Morris responded there were no screening requirements. Chairperson
Smith asked if the 150 square foot open space dedication could have a dual use. Planner Morris responded the church could share the open space.
Mr. Foreman stated he agreed with Staff conditions and DRB comments.
Mr. Hedglin stated he liked how the perimeter buildings screened the parking, but wondered what the back of the buildings looked like and if Staff had any conditions placed on those
facades. Planner Morris responded Staff had no conditions because the buildings would not present a “backside” and the materials and details would be carried out on all four sides.
Mr. Kreuger asked if there was any berming proposed. Planner Morris responded there was none proposed.
Mr. Livingston asked if there was a problem with the design of the main facades and the lack of landscaping differentiating residential use from commercial use. Mr. Promisco responded
there would be signs differentiating the two sections of the development. Mr. Shahan responded that, on Main Street, there were many apartments located above commercial uses. Mr. Livingston
stated it seemed ambiguous not to differentiate the residential and business sections of the development and suggested making it clear that there were offices and apartments in what
appeared to be only office buildings. Mr. Foreman responded it would not be possible to bring the apartments forward as a whole because they were above the offices the entire length
of the structures and asked if changing the window style would differentiate between the apartments and the offices. Mr. Livingston responded that he did not know if separate window
styles would be enough to differentiate between the two uses.
Chairperson Smith asked if the church was hoping to have a connection to the proposed residences. Mr. Shahan responded there would be no connection as two pieces of property were involved
and the church would be selling their portion to them.
Mr. Livingston asked if part of the open space could be in an easement. Mr. Shahan responded the open space would be in an easement and would be shared between the two properties.
Mr. Hedglin agreed that there should be a differentiation between the office and the residential uses, and asked if the residential doors would be locked at all times, or if there would
be enough signage to accurately direct the patrons of the commercial establishments. Mr. Shahan responded there would be signage directing the public. Mr. Hedglin stated the gravel
path needed to be addressed and should get the maintenance it needs. Mr. Foreman responded the Stoneridge PUD should be responsible for maintaining the trail as they were required to
put the trail in. Planner Morris responded that the proposed development was responsible for the portion of gravel path that passes through their site.
Mr. Livingston stated that, other than his comment on the ambiguous nature of the building entrances (which could be corrected with different doors and windows), he had concerns with
the entry to the site from the sidewalk and that the buildings appeared to be shoehorned onto the site. He added the sidewalk could give a little relief between the buildings and there
should be more space around the structures. He stated there was a major dead end corridor in Building B on the second floor of the structure and that was a major code violation. Mr.
Shahan responded a wall could be moved to correct the corridor issue. Mr. Livingston stated he thought they were putting too much on the site and that was not always for the better.
Mr. Krueger stated he agreed with Mr. Livingston with regard to differentiating between the residential and the commercial uses and added that special attention should be given to the
pedestrian connections from the interior of the site to the sidewalks.
Chairperson Smith stated she was disappointed that the landscaping requirements from Staff were only 8 out of 18 points. She suggested the sidewalks be narrowed and replaced with landscaping,
the rear of the buildings be landscaped, and the landscaping could be broken up and spread out along Durston Road. She stated the site was very stark and she was disappointed with the
requirements for landscaping on this proposal. Mr. Shahan responded there was existing landscaping, but some of it was fenced off because of children using the play area on the property.
Chairperson Smith stated she thought the scored and pigmented pavement should be used on all the pedestrian pathways on the site and she agreed with Mr. Livingston that the residential
should be differentiated from the commercial entrances. She stated she supported the project with Staff conditions.
MOTION: Mr. Krueger moved, Mr. Hedglin seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Snowload Condos CUP/COA #Z-04199 with Staff conditions #1-#9.
AMENDMENT: Mr. Hedglin moved, Chairperson Smith seconded, to add condition #10 that the landscaped area between the buildings and the front sidewalk be increased. The amendment carried
4-0.
The vote on the motion was split 2-2 with Chairperson Smith and Mr. Hedglin voting in favor and, Mr. Livingston and Mr. Krueger voting in opposition.
ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW
A. Transfer Station CUP/COA #Z-04229 (Morris)
Red Wing Road
* A Conditional Use Permit Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 37,000 square foot solid waste transfer station.
Doug Morley, Lowell Springer, Chad Rumfrey, Project Engineer - Dustin Johnson, and Director of Public Works -Debbie Arkell joined the DRB.
Mr. Springer explained the intent of a waste transfer station is to likely utilize the Logan Landfill. The Waste Transfer Station would be responsible for compacting and compressing
solid waste for fewer trips to the Landfill. He stated that in the event the landfill becomes full, the proposed site is near the interstate and the railroad so that future arrangements
for waste transfer could be made and options left open. He added that the site was chosen through a very tedious public process to be certain that the design of the building, odors,
and operating hours would be carefully controlled.
Ms. Arkell stated the Logan Landfill site would not necessarily be the final destination for the waste and the transfer station was not intended for sorting of waste, but there would
be recycling areas and hazardous waste areas on-site. She explained the process of bringing in waste, dumping procedures, and the removal of the waste from the site. Mr. Morley added
there would be offices, locker room, and break room facilities for employees.
Mr. Hedglin asked precisely where on the site the station would be located. Mr. Morley and Ms. Arkell illustrated on the site plan.
Mr. Springer stated the impact from the freeway would not be great due to the elevation of the railroad and the proposed berm. He stated that a person would plainly see the site from
the bridge on the Frontage Road. Ms. Arkell added they chose the enclosed design of the structure because of the site’s location in the I-90 Entryway Overlay Corridor. Mr. Morley stated
the curved roof design was to provide continuity and soften the impact of the structures.
Mr. Livingston asked if the Transfer Station had to be “clear-spanned”. Mr. Morley responded it had to be “clear-spanned” because of the operations inside the building. Ms. Arkell
added that the size would hopefully accommodate 20 years of solid waste disposal for Bozeman.
Mr. Krueger asked what color had been proposed for the roof. Mr. Morley responded they were considering grey or green earth-tone colors, but the curved roof would prevent reflection
from the sun.
Mr. Livingston asked if the optimum size for the transfer station was 200 feet by 185 feet. Mr. Morley responded that, for the last three years, Erik Colville at S.C.S. Engineering
had been
doing studies in Bozeman on the amount of waste, waiting time, etc., and proper function of the station. The proposed structure would meet Mr. Colville’s projections. Mr. Morley added
there would be a row of windows for day-lighting the interior.
Mr. Livingston asked if the height of the structure was based on the estimated size of the pile of waste. Mr. Morley responded that the height was proportioned to the height of the
trucks when the waste carrier sections of the vehicles were extended for dumping. Mr. Livingston asked if there was some kind of cross ventilation for the structure. Mr. Morley responded
there would be cross ventilation, the operation would be very sanitary as the structure would be cleaned twice a day (weather permitting), and the floor would be replaced every seven
years.
Mr. Johnson added that operation of the station prevented waste from being in the facility for longer than 24 hours.
Chairperson Smith asked if the City would buy the transfer vehicles or already had them. Ms. Arkell responded the necessary vehicles would either be bought or contracted. Ms. Arkell
asked Mr. Springer and Mr. Morley if they would be better off changing the roof design of the office building to a peaked roof. Mr. Morley responded it could be done. Mr. Springer
responded that keeping the curved roof design would serve the purpose of lessening the impact of the structures on the surrounding area and have more of a campus feel. Chairperson Smith
asked if City Shops were moved to the site, would Shop’s structures maintain the design and color of the existing structures. Mr. Springer responded they would.
Mr. Livingston asked if the large detention pond would be for the site only. Mr. Morley responded the pond would be more regional and for the whole road. Mr. Springer stated the modification
of the view with considerably sized berms and trees would assist with lessening the impact on passers by.
Chairperson Smith asked if the site would be fenced. Ms. Arkell responded the site would be fenced for safety purposes.
Mr. Krueger asked if a feature depicted on the site plan was parking stalls. Mr. Morley responded they were trailer spaces that would be occupied most of the time.
Chairperson Smith asked what would happen with the Transfer Station after 20 years. Ms. Arkell responded they were hoping that recycling would become more popular, and the transfer
station could be expanded, or there could be another transfer station site added in another location. Ms. Arkell added that, in the future, greater compaction of waste materials could
allow for more easily transporting waste utilizing the railroad.
Chairperson Smith stated she was anxious to see the model of the site.
Mr. Livingston stated that a building of that size by itself would definitely stand out; however, the development of the site as a whole would create more of a campus feeling making
the principal structure seem smaller. He stated he appreciated the concern about the shape of the roof with no penetrations and that, from a visibility standpoint, the design made it
a “non-roof”. He suggested differentiating between the buildings for greater options in future phases of development that may be necessary. He suggested adding agricultural character
to the design.
He stated there were so many positives, with regard to the site, that the lower profile it gets the better. He added that he liked the durability of the proposed materials.
Mr. Krueger stated he agreed with breaking up the rooflines and the incorporation of natural light. Mr. Springer stated there was a system available that was very efficient because
the ceiling panel would not accommodate a skylight so the roof would be translucent to let natural light in. Mr. Krueger stated the site signage should take into consideration the surrounding
properties by incorporating the signs into the landscaping and structures. He added that incorporating educational elements into the facility would build an ethic and using recycled
materials in the construction would facilitate future generations of recycling.
Chairperson Smith stated she agreed with Mr. Livingston’s comments about agricultural aspects being incorporated and with Mr. Krueger’s comments regarding the use of recycled materials.
She suggested pedestrian pathways could be installed from the offices on site to the hazardous materials and parking areas.
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 5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
________________________________
Dawn Smith, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board