Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-14-04 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Dawn Smith Jami Morris, Associate Planner Brian Krueger Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Carol Asleson Carol Schott, Administrative Secretary Scott Hedglin Visitors Present Lowell Springer Bryan Angove Catherine Koenen ITEM 2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2004 Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of August 24, 2004. Mr. Krueger stated that on page 2 he did not suggest a solid fence, but was concerned that a solid fence would be constructed. MOTION: Mr. Krueger moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to approve the minutes with the requested correction. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW Magic Diamond Too CUP/COA #Z-04209 (Morris/Johnson) 2625 West Main Street * A Conditional Use Permit Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a new gaming parlor with on-site sales and consumption of alcohol and related site improvements. Lowell Springer, Bryan Angove, and Catherine Koenen joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report noting Staff’s conditions and related site improvements. She presented a color rendering of the colors proposed for the structure and stated Staff recommended using muted colors that were less like franchise colors. She stated the two mature willows on the east property line of the property could, if located on the subject property, be counted toward required landscaping points. Mr. Hedglin asked if the parking lot was permitted to encroach into the front yard setback. Planner Morris responded that the drive aisle was the encroachment and therefore, all of the associated parking should be moved. Ms. Koenen asked if the sidewalk along the building could be decreased to a width of three feet. Planner Morris responded it could only be decreased to three feet if the parking stalls were lengthened and the dimensions of the site did not allow for the stalls to be lengthened. Ms. Asleson asked if the proposed vestibule protruded onto the sidewalk. Mr. Springer responded they did protrude onto the sidewalk and would serve as a bumper stop for vehicles. Planner Morris added that the color rendering looked different from the site plan. Mr. Springer stated the site was long and narrow and, to utilize it in the intended manner, the building would have to be near the street with the parking located at the rear of the property. He stated the proposal was in keeping with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and with previous DRB and City Commission recommendations. Ms. Asleson asked if there were planting beds under the overhang of the proposed structure. Mr. Springer responded they were under the overhang but the plantings were not included in the building rendering. Mr. Hedglin asked how the applicant would handle backing from compact parking stalls along the building. Planner Morris responded the ordinance required five feet of backing space. Mr. Hedglin suggested reorienting those parking stalls 90 degrees. Planner Morris concurred with Mr. Hedglin. Chairperson Smith asked what ideas the applicant proposed for signage. Mr. Angove stated sign companies were currently working on the design. Chairperson Smith asked if only one wall mounted sign was proposed or if there would be a freestanding sign as well. Mr. Angove and Mr. Springer responded they were unsure at this time. Chairperson Smith stated she looked on the internet for pictures of the franchise structures and asked what made this building significant to Bozeman as opposed to being a franchise building. Mr. Angove responded that the structure was not attached to a convenience store and some architectural elements would be different. Ms. Asleson asked what would be housed in a cupola. Mr. Springer responded it would contain a small amount of mechanical equipment, but was mainly aesthetic. Ms. Asleson asked what the roof pitch was and why that pitch was proposed. Mr. Springer stated the 3:12 pitch was determined by the amount of snow that would be sliding off when the metal roof warmed to a certain temperature. He added he did not want the roof pitch to be greater than 5:12. Mr. Krueger asked where the proposed street trees were located on the front of the site. Ms. Koenen pointed out the proposed trees on the site plan. Ms. Asleson asked if trees could be located in the MDT right of way. Planner Morris responded they could not. Ms. Asleson asked if the adjoining lot had the same owner. Mr. Springer responded it was the same owner, but a different company. Chairperson Smith stated it would be great to have a shared access between the two structures. Planner Morris responded Staff would not support a shared access as the two developments were to be separated to discourage any connection between the two uses. Mr. Hedglin asked if the landscaped area was 79,000 square feet. Planner Morris responded that the calculation must have been from a prior site plan for a previous project and was actually a little over 7,000 square feet. Mr. Hedglin stated the parking stalls in the front and the parallel stalls on the northeast corner of the lot would cause problems when people entered and exited the site. He added that, when alcohol consumption was involved, it was a good idea to make it easy to enter and exit the parking stalls. He suggested that the proposed EIFS and stone veneer be replaced with more permanent materials. Mr. Krueger stated he supported Staff conditions and he liked the new site plan provided at the meeting. He stated he was concerned with the 3:12 roof pitch and cupola with a wide fascia on such a small structure. He suggested a 6:12 roof pitch and using a lighter tint on the windows. Ms. Asleson stated she agreed with Staff conditions and she would like to see a greater roof pitch. She stated the fascia could be narrowed because it made the proposed building look out of balance. She stated she supported the plantings and would like to see equally spaced trees along the boulevard, a pattern which could carry over to the next property. Chairperson Smith stated she thought the proposed changes were positive and in the right direction (i.e. plantings, roof pitch); however, she found the proposal bland and uninviting. She suggested larger windows or at least making them appear so. She stated she agreed with Staff conditions, but was not comfortable in supporting the project at this time due to there being drastic changes required for the project. Ms. Asleson asked Mr. Springer if the applicant would be willing to continue the project until the next DRB meeting, make the requested changes to the site plan, and bring the revised plans back to the DRB. Planner Morris interjected that the City Commission date would have to be moved if the DRB reviewed the proposal again in two weeks and suggested the DRB review Final Site Plan for the project, after the City Commission meeting. Mr. Hedglin asked how specific the DRB motion would have to be to condition the project enough for City Commission review. Mr. Springer stated the stone veneer was pretty permanent. Mr. Hedglin responded that the manufactured stone was not as permanent as real stone and he wondered if the applicant’s budget could accommodate the use of real stone. Mr. Angove and Mr. Springer responded they could use real stone. MOTION: Ms. Asleson moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Magic Diamond Too CUP/COA #Z-04209 with Staff conditions and the addition of five conditions: 1) the roof pitch be increased to closer to 6:12, 2) the use of more permanent materials (i.e. real stone veneer – stone water table/wainscot), 3) larger window appearance and lighter window tinting, 4) the reorientation of the compact parking stalls on the north side of the building by 90 degrees, and 5) that the Final Site Plan be reviewed by the DRB. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 4. DISCUSSION ITEM The possibility of moving DRB meetings to Wednesdays. The City Manager has rescheduled a weekly meeting from Wednesdays to Tuesdays at 10:00 a.m. Therefore, DRC will meet regularly on Wednesdays beginning September 29, 2004. It might be advantageous to the applicants to schedule DRB on Wednesdays, also. Administrative Secretary Carol Schott, on Planning Director Andrew Epple’s behalf, addressed the DRB and recommended the DRB meetings be moved to Wednesdays to assist applicants in attending their required DRC and DRB meetings on the same day. Chairperson Smith stated she was in favor of a change of time as well as the change of day. She added it would be impossible for the DRB to have a meeting on a proposal before the DRC met on that proposal. Mr. Livingston had e-mailed previously that the DRB meeting on Wednesday would strongly conflict with his school schedule. Mr. Carpenter had stated previously in a conversation with Ms. Hastie that he was not particular about which day the DRB met. Mr. Krueger stated he had already informed people of his regularly scheduled Tuesday meeting date. Ms. Asleson stated that either day would fit her schedule. 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 4:31 p.m. ________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board