Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-03 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2003 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Dawn Smith Jami Morris, Assistant Planner Randy Carpenter Candace Honatke, Assistant Planner Jim Raznoff Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Bill Hanson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Carol Asleson Visitors Present Troy Ausmus Ron Dick Joe Turnowchyk Dennis Jordan Don Stueck Gerry Taylor ITEM 2. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2002 Mr. Hanson moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to approve the minutes of December 10, 2002 as presented. Motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Country Inn & Suites MaSP/COA #Z-02244 (Morris) Valley Center Road * A Major Site Plan Application with Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 104 room hotel and related site improvements. Dennis Jordan and Joseph Turnowchyk joined the DRB. Planner Morris presented the staff report. She noted the applicant was applying for a deviation in building height. Mr. Turnowchyk displayed an example of the proposed building materials. He stated they tried to match the materials they would use with the surrounding area. He stated that he switched to darker materials at the recommendation of the DRB at the Informal Review in July. He stated they intended to use a cross buck beneath each window. Mr. Raznoff asked what types of air conditioners were used in each room, alluding to the air conditioners’ ventilation being the reason for the height deviation. Mr. Turnowchyk responded that the longer suites had a different type of air conditioner than the shorter, smaller suites. Therefore, the air conditioning ventilation was not the cause for the height deviation. Mr. Raznoff asked if future development was in the applicants’ plans. Mr. Jordan responded that there was definitely room for future development, but it had not been specifically designated at that time. Mr. Raznoff questioned whether or not additional landscaping was provided in the rear of the building during the Informal Review. Mr. Jordan noted the addition of several shrubs, and some trees had been noted on the formal submittal. Mr. Hanson asked if there would be two entrances and exits. Mr. Jordan responded there would be two entryways. In response to Mr. Hanson’s question regarding why there were no curbs drawn in some spots, Mr. Jordan stated that the missing curbs were to accommodate future development of the site. In response to Mr. Carpenter’s question regarding Staff’s opinion of the requested deviation, Planner Morris responded Staff supports with the deviation. In response to Ms. Smith’s question regarding landscaping, Mr. Jordan responded they would have to develop a landscape plan for the east and west elevations. Planner Morris stated the landscaping would be up to code. In response to Ms. Smith’s question about whether or not the entrances lined up to create a four-way in the lot, Planner Morris responded the entrances were proposed to be set up in such a way as to place them directly across from each other. In response to Mr. Raznoff’s question regarding the bike trail, Planner Morris stated the conditions of the approved preliminary plat stated the bike trail would go all the way through the subject property in lieu of city sidewalks. Mr. Raznoff stated he supported the proposed project. Mr. Hanson stated he agreed that landscaping should be placed around the building. He stated the trail would help ease the vehicular traffic situation. He stated he liked the materials proposed and, over all, would support the project. Ms. Asleson recommended more landscaping around the porch to screen the patrons view of the interstate. She stated she would like to see more conifers in the parking lot to help avoid the piling and drifting of snow. Ms. Asleson stated she was in support of the project over all. Mr. Carpenter stated he supported the project with Staff and DRB members’ recommendations. Ms. Smith asked for the distance of the bike path from Valley Center Road. Planner Morris responded that there would be a 120 foot right of way so there were no safety issues with the proximity of the bike path. She stated she would like to see scored and pigmented concrete across both driveways. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval with Staff conditions, and adding a condition, “textured concrete at all pedestrian crosswalks and the main entrance to the building, and to add a condition stating, “landscaping & shrubs should be added around the perimeter of the building, additional landscaping should be added as buffer screening for Valley Center and the off ramp from the interstate, and there should be some coordination with regard to the design and location of the trees.” The motion carried 5-0. B. C’Mon Inn MaSP/COA #Z-02243 (Honatke) 2247 Valley Center Road * A Major Site Plan Application with Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 97,154 sq. ft. hotel with 146 parking spaces and related site improvements. Ron Dick and Troy Ausmus joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Candace Honatke presented the staff report. She noted the DRB’s comments on the project at the Informal Review in March. She noted the DRB preferred the 7:12 roof pitch as opposed to the Informal site plans’ roof pitch. She noted the stronger connection of the bike path to the building and its entrances, which was required by the DRB during the Informal Review. She noted the applicant will address the landscaping and usable outdoor space on the amended site plans to be submitted prior to Final Site Plan approval. Mr. Dick stated they had not changed the overall design of the building aside from the south elevation where they had added dormers, rooms, and rotated the canopy. He stated there would be an 8 foot fence screening the refuse containers. He noted they were requesting a deviation to allow the building to be 47 feet high. He stated the second deviation was for signage on the east side of the building. They were requesting an 8 inch gap between the wall and the sign instead of the 6 inch maximum gap the Zoning Ordinance allows. He stated a third deviation was a reduction in the required number of parking spaces due to the proposed shared parking with the adjoining lot and setback restraints. Planner Honatke stated Staff had no adverse issues with any of the requested deviations. Mr. Raznoff asked if the bike path had been placed in a linear pattern for a reason. Mr. Dick responded that the DRB had suggested putting it along the easement and he had done just that. Mr. Carpenter asked how many parking spaces the proposal was short of the requirement. Planner Honatke responded there was a ten space difference. She stated there could be a compromise so that neither the landscaping nor the parking space allotments would suffer the adverse affects of too little parking or landscaping. She stated that a revised landscape plan would have to be provided so landscaping could be evaluated. Mr. Carpenter asked if the storm drains would be piped. Mr. Dick stated there was a drainage pond rather than piping. Mr. Carpenter asked why they had requested a sign deviation. Mr. Dick responded the deviation was at the request of the sign company and had to do with the appearance of the sign being better if held slightly farther from the building behind it. Ms. Smith asked if there was a sidewalk all the way around the building. Mr. Dick responded that, although the color rendering did not show it, the site plan proposed a sidewalk completely around the building. In response to Ms. Smith’s question regarding whether there would be landscaping all the way around the outside of the building, Mr. Dick stated there would be landscaping around the entire perimeter of the building. Mr. Raznoff stated he supported the proposed development and had not heard any concerns with regard to the deviations to make him think differently. Mr. Hanson stated he supported the reduction in the total number of parking stalls required rather than the reduction of landscaping. He stated he supported landscaping around the entire building. He stated the proposed project would be a positive addition to the town of Bozeman. Ms. Asleson stated she supported the parking deviation. She stated the colors of the sign were too primary and not soft enough for the tone of the building. She stated the placement of the Austrian pines was odd and that she was frustrated that the landscaping plan was incomplete and she was supposed to comment on it. Mr. Carpenter stated he would like to further comment on the requested deviations. He stated he supported putting in compact car parking spaces instead of less parking if the applicant could do that. He stated he would like to see more landscaping around the detention pond. Mr. Carpenter stated the building would be a great addition to that area. Ms. Smith stated she supported Staff conditions. She stated that with regard to the sign, framing the sign might help it tie in better with the building. She stated she was concerned with the landscaping. She stated she supported a decrease in parking and, thus, the deviation. She stated she was concerned about people parking around the islands because people are lazy. Mr. Dick stated there would be signage on the island stating it was a “No Parking” zone. Ms. Smith stated she was concerned that the signage deviation would allow a change in illumination. Mr. Dick stated he would check with the engineers and see exactly why the deviation was requested. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to forward approval to City Commission with Staff Conditions, with the addition of condition #9-“the landscaping plan subject to approval by Carol Asleson on submittal.” Motion carried 5-0. C. Big R MaSP #Z-02252 (Skelton) 2311 North 7th Avenue * A Major Site Plan Application to allow the renovation of the existing building to include office spaces and greenhouses, with related site improvements. Mr. Hanson stated he would abstain from commenting on this project as it would be a conflict of interest. Gerry Taylor and Don Stueck joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Candace Honatke presented the staff report on behalf of Senior Planner David Skelton. Senior Planner David Skelton stated there was only one condition Staff wanted to address. He stated there would be a screening requirement along Flora Lane for the outside storage area versus the requirement for the off-street parking lot. He stated the materials would be in concert with the existing Big R Surplus Store. Mr. Taylor stated the proposal’s aim was to tie the existing building to the proposed building. He stated that landscape would be continued in much the same manner as the existing building’s landscaping. He stated they elected to provide some overflow parking stalls, but they should reduce the parking by 20 spaces with a result of 113 parking spaces. Ms. Asleson asked if the green fence would remain where it was. Mr. Taylor stated the fence would not remain, and sidewalks would be installed instead. In response to Ms. Smith’s question on whether or not they could use the same entrance for the proposed building as they use for the existing Big R building, Mr. Skelton stated that the proposed driveway would be the best method for controlling the entrance and exit of vehicles. Ms. Smith asked if there were proposed path connections and a designated pedestrian crosswalk to help people find their way from one building to another. Mr. Taylor stated there would be sidewalk connections between the buildings. Ms. Asleson expressed her support of the project, but suggested the landscaping be more meandering and not so linear in design. Mr. Carpenter asked which area was the subject of the annexation application. Planner Skelton indicated the property boundaries and that it consisted of four parcels of land containing 4.04 acres. Mr. Raznoff stated he thought it was an excellent application and because they intend to re-use the existing building, he supported the project wholeheartedly. Ms. Smith stated she agreed with Mr. Raznoff and she stated she supported the project. She noted she would like to see scored or pigmented pavement connecting the buildings. MOTION: Mr. Raznoff moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to forward approval with Staff conditions amending condition #3 – “to combine landscaping and screening to comply with section 18.49 of the Zoning Ordinance” and adding condition #8 – “requiring the delineation of the walkway to the greenhouse through the use of scored pavement.” ITEM 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION: Ms. Smith moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to postpone the election of officers until all DRB members are in attendance. Motion carried 4-0. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Ms Asleson moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. ______________________________________________ Dawn Smith, Vice Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board