Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-29-04 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2004 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:30 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 Bill Hanson Randy Carpenter Visitors Present Scott Bechtle Kurt Ratz Rick Ogle Lowell Springer Debbie Arkell Dustin Johnson Mark Kottwitz Don Stueck Candace Mastel Doug Morley ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of September 14, 2004. MOTION: Ms. Asleson moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Kenyon Noble PUD Prel. Plan #Z-04230 (Windemaker) Northwest of the intersection of Oak Street and North 11th Avenue * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Application to allow (17.7 acres to be developed as a large scale retail building materials facility: consisting of a 56,610 sq. ft. (72,210 sq. ft. with future expansion) large scale retail structure for retail display and sales area, office space, and warehousing of product; a 33,220 sq. ft. (40,920 sq. ft. with future expansion) large scale retail structure for drive-thru pickup area for filling orders; 148,949 sq. ft. outdoor sales areas and outdoor storage area; and related site improvements. Scott Bechtle, Kurt Ratz, and Rick Ogle joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report noting the locations of the buildings and outdoor sales and storage areas. She noted the relaxations and which of them Staff would and would not support. She stated the structure should not present a “rear” to adjoining properties. She stated ADR Staff recommended a number of improvements to the rear of the structure to improve its appearance to the adjoining properties. She stated the second building was an issue on all four sides as the structure looked like a warehouse building and had no architectural features similar to the principal building. She stated the extent of the fencing on the north side of the property was long and without breaks. She stated the parking and landscaping on Oak Street nearly met code requirements. She stated the landscaping requirements looked to have been met, but the applicant’s calculation was slightly off. Mr. Krueger asked how the heights of the two buildings fit into that zoning district. Planner Windemaker responded the roof of the principal building was roughly 50 feet tall and was allowable with a 6:12 roof pitch and the smaller building was roughly 44 feet tall with a 3:12 roof pitch and that was also allowable. Mr. Hanson asked, if the 50 foot drives requested were not supportable, why Staff was supporting the 40 foot wide drives. Planner Windemaker responded Engineering Staff concluded the standard industrial 40 foot wide drive was sufficient and would be discussed with the Director of Public Works. Mr. Hedglin asked if the proposal was allowable in the Regional Commercial District of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. Planner Windemaker responded large scale retail was a conditional use in that district, but as to whether or not a lumber yard was considered large scale retail, the City Commission would have to decide. Mr. Bechtle stated the project was great for Bozeman because it pulled Kenyon Noble out of the downtown area to leave room for downtown to expand. He stated the development would widen Oak Street, provide landscaping, and green space, and it would be a an attractive structure. He stated everything depicted on the site plan was a function required for the business to operate properly, but would cost money, many of which had been added to appease various boards and committees. He stated it seemed as if the code requirements were meant to keep applicants from building. He stated the applicant had requested two monument signs at the access points to direct people. He noted, because they thought the City wanted reduced signage, they had proposed less signage on the building. He stated the outdoor sales area had been separated from outdoor storage, and it had been separated because of the last meeting of the DRC, even though the applicant had thought the original setup was acceptable to the DRC. He stated Staff was asking for windows and wood where there was racking planned on the elevations. Planner Windemaker responded that only some of the materials used on the front of the main building were recommended by ADR Staff for the upper areas of the warehouse building. Mr. Bechtle stated it was not fair to be required to have a front on every side of the building. Planner Windemaker responded the requirements were clear and they did not require a “front” on every side, but a mimic of materials and colors tying the elevations of the structures to each other and other structures on the site. Mr. Bechtle stated he misunderstood some of Staff’s comments, but the project was heading in the right direction as far as requirements went. Planner Windemaker concurred. From the audience, Candace Mastel – CTA Architects, stated there had been evergreens of a large caliper worked into the landscape plan. Mr. Ogle stated he considered the proposed structure beautiful. He stated in 1958, Kenyon Noble was one of the first drive-through lumber yards in the country. He stated the increase in outdoor storage was never an issue until the last stages of the review process and the loss of that outdoor storage area was a deal breaker as far as he was concerned as it was the crux of the business. He stated he wanted a chance to use his concept against the second and third largest corporations in America. Chairperson Smith asked about the increase in outdoor storage. Planner Windemaker responded that outdoor sales and storage was restricted to 25% of the total square footage of a large scale retail building. From the audience, Don Stueck – Martel Construction, stated the 50 foot access was discussed between himself and Mr. Megard after the DRC meeting. An agreement was reached, but there had not been any final word yet. He stated the only relaxation still in question was the outdoor storage space. He stated the wall mounted sign would be reduced in size if they were allowed to use the two monument signs. Mr. Bechtle stated there would need to be an offer to reduce the overall signage by 25%. Mr. Krueger asked for the maximum number of employees. Mr. Ogle responded the number of employees would be between 60 and 80. Mr. Krueger asked if the fencing would be the same in each location proposed. Mr. Bechtle responded that it would be the same fencing. Mr. Hanson stated the Staff Report showed 30% open space and the calculation assumed expansion would occur at a later date. Mr. Bechtle responded that the calculation included the expansion and the 30% calculation was accurate. Planner Windemaker stated she had made calculation of the 30% open space requirement a DRC condition. Mr. Hanson stated he was confused with the dynamic between the PUD and CUP applications and asked for explanation from Planner Windemaker. Planner Windemaker responded that the CUP for a PUD allows an applicant the opportunity to request relaxations. Mr. Hanson stated the use, open space, etc. could be specifically identified through the PUD. Mr. Bechtle responded the CUP and PUD were running concurrently. Mr. Hanson asked about the landscape point calculations. Planner Windemaker responded it appeared to her the applicant had met the 23 landscape points, but the positioning of the landscaping was still in question. Ms. Mastel stated a change in species and some relocation would suffice. Mr. Hedglin asked for an explanation of the functionality between the warehouse building and the retail building and if they needed to be at the same elevation. Mr. Bechtle stated the retail building was 4 feet higher than the warehouse building due to site grade and it was not preferable to increase the height difference between the buildings as the two buildings would not function as well. Mr. Stueck stated the elevation of the retail building from Oak Street was a six foot descent and the elevation from the retail structure to the warehouse was a 4 ½ foot descent. Ms. Asleson asked for an estimated time frame on the expansion of their facility. Mr. Ogle responded it would be 7-10 years before expansion occurred. Mr. Krueger stated he liked the revised site plan, but the DRB would have liked to have seen the building moved closer to Oak Street. He stated he supported Staff conditions and he would support the small monument sign at the drive access. Mr. Hanson stated he thought the revised site plan was better than the original. He stated the development on Oak Street and North 11th Avenue would be beneficial to the community. He stated the landscaping was well done. He was critical of the exterior finish and design of the building, but the architecture for this type of use was valid for where it was proposed. He stated he thought it would be a superior development to the Bridger Peaks Town Center. He stated the number one issue with the neighbors would be the outdoor storage area, but the project would not have a significant impact on the neighbors. He stated he supported Staff conditions and the two requested monument signs. Mr. Hedglin stated he liked the design of the screening fence and he agreed with Staff conditions and Mr. Hanson’s comments. He suggested some pedestrian links be added to the parking plan. Ms. Asleson stated the landscape plan was fabulous and she agreed with staff conditions. She stated she was concerned about the future expansion with regard to empty space left waiting for 7-10 years until expansion occurred. She stated she supported the project with Staff conditions and the request for the two monument signs. Chairperson Smith stated the reduction in the parking along Oak Street, the public plaza, and the demonstration area were good modifications to the original site plan. She stated she supported the project with the requested relaxations and Staff conditions. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Kenyon Noble PUD Prel. Plan #Z-04230 with Staff conditions and additionally, suggesting the City Commission allow the relaxation requested for signage for a second free-standing sign as long as the square footage is at or below amount allowed by ordinance. 2. 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 and accessory buildings. Debbie Arkell – City Director of Public Service, Doug Morley, Lowell Springer, and Dustin Johnson – City Engineer Intern joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report noting Staff conditions and that the north elevation could have opaque windows for additional venting and architectural detail. She stated the applicant could use obvious sills, awnings, etc. to provide relief. Mr. Springer added there could be openings that were not working openings to add fenestration to the building. Mr. Morley stated the applicant had looked at different roof designs and none of the possibilities fit in with the surrounding area. Mr. Springer stated they had looked at a standard pitched roof and, with the berms and rolling pitch of the site, he stated the gable end looked out of place. Chairperson Smith asked which color of the two depicted the applicants preferred. Mr. Springer stated the most imposing view of the scale was when a vehicle came over the overpass and the blue hue proposed for the structure would be overtaken by the opposing skyline. Mr. Carpenter asked if the applicant had considered a “living, green roof”. Mr. Springer stated the cost was too great to maintain a “green roof”, but they would be supportive of it if it were feasible. Mr. Hanson stated the overall architecture was appropriate for the use of the site. He asked if any of the horizontal aesthetics could be increased and suggested locations for the placement of windows. Mr. Springer responded it could be done. Chairperson Smith asked if the blue and grey colors would be used on the site. Mr. Springer stated they were leaning toward those colors, but in the manufacturing of steel there could be variation in the depicted colors. Ms. Asleson stated she preferred the proposed green color and she hoped the landscaping would be augmented with more plantings. She stated the scale house was attractive and the location of the site was logical. Mr. Hedglin stated he supported the proposal with the blue color instead of the green and he thought it was an appropriate location for the facility. He stated his only concern was the continuity of the roof curve over the scale house door. Mr. Krueger re-iterated his previous comments from the informal DRB review and added that he preferred the proposal in green. Mr. Carpenter stated he preferred a “living roof” (green) and he hoped the city would consider the concept when constructing their next building. Chairperson Smith asked how a pedestrian would get from the locker rooms to the office with no pedestrian ways and a 16 foot drop from one level to the next. Mr. Springer responded there could be a step system put in place in some location. From the audience, Mark Kottwitz – Sanitation Superintendent suggested there could be a step system from the “Z-Wall”. Chairperson Smith stated the design and colors of the structures reminded her of an Interstate rest stop. She suggested they use a softer shade of grey or brown for the rock and muted roof colors. She stated she supported the use of canopies on the office building to help it stand apart. Ms. Arkell stated they hoped to use xeriscape landscaping on the site. Ms. Asleson asked if it was possible to get a tan colored rough face for the structures if the proposal ended up being colored green. MOTION: Mr. Krueger moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Transfer Station CUP/COA #Z-04229 with Staff conditions. The motion carried 6-0. 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 5:18 p.m. ________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board