HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-11-03 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2003
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
Mel Howe Candace Honatke, Urban Designer/Planner II
Carol Asleson Carol Schott, Recording Secretary
Dawn Smith
Jim Raznoff
Randy Carpenter
Visitors Present
Phil rotherham
Dennis Hardin
Jesse Sobrepena
Ron Slade
Scott Bechtle
Lowell Springer
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2003
Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of February 11, 2003. MOTION: Ms. Asleson moved, Mr. Howe seconded, approval of the minutes as presented. The
motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2003
Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of February 25, 2003. MOTION: Mr. Raznoff moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion
carried 4-0.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
A. Kit Yan Chu Building MiSP/COA #Z-03012 (Honatke)
808 Stoneridge Drive
* A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a new 11,630 square foot two-story office and retail structure with parking and related
site improvements.
Lowell Springer, Jesse Sobrepena, and Dennis Hardin joined the DRB. Urban Designer/
Planner Candace Honatke presented the staff report and distributed a memo, which listed modified recommended conditions of approval. She reviewed the modified recommended conditions.
Chairperson Smith if the new conditions replaced the ones in the staff report. Planner Honatke stated that was the case.
Mr. Springer stated he proposed a compromise with the placement of the ingress/egress as a right in/right out access. He described the exterior finishes being proposed. He noted it
is impossible to be 80 feet from the intersection of Charlotte Street and Stoneridge Drive for the ingress/egress. Therefore, he stated his proposal for a right in/right out access
to prevent the clash of traffic from the intersection and traffic attempting a left turn. Mr. Springer noted that one other proposal would be to move the handicapped parking, the
landscaped area, and the ingress/egress location. Planner Honatke noted the issue was an engineering/DRC issue rather than a DRB issue.
Mr. Raznoff asked for clarification of the 80-foot code requirement. Following clarification, Mr. Raznoff asked if the this parking lots and the next one are sharing parking. Mr. Springer
noted he had encouraged the two projects to work together with the parking; however, both owners have opted to not share parking Mr. Raznoff asked for further clarification of the street
widths. Mr. Springer explained the widths and the fact there was no parking proposed on either street.
Ms. Asleson asked what kind of retail use would be located here. Mr. Springer noted any B-1 use would be permitted.
Mr. Howe commented that the DRC condition on the 80-foot requirement for intersections and accesses would be debated at City Commission. He noted it wasn’t within the DRBs preview.
Chairperson Smith asked if there is only one entrance to the building. Mr. Springer noted the two emergency entrances on the east side of the building.
Mr. Raznoff noted that since Charlotte Street is a private street with no parking, the egress/ingress doesn’t seem to be a problem as proposed. He stated he was concerned with the lack
of coordination between the parking lots of the two side-by-side businesses. He noted the connection of the two lots would help eliminate one access. Mr. Hardin stated that when providing
the number of parking stalls to meet code, there often wasn’t enough parking available. He reviewed the evolution of the plans for this project and the elimination of the inter-connectiveness
between the two parking lots. He noted the proposed traffic flow through this parking lot seemed to work well. Mr. Raznoff concluded by stating that by combining the parking lots,
the trash enclosure locations could have been combined. He stated he has no objections to the location of trash enclosure or the location of the ingress/egress.
Ms. Asleson stated more detail indicating the flow of traffic from the neighborhood lots had to be provided before she could determine whether the traffic situation would be a problem.
She suggested the applicant use a wider variety of tree species and named several alternatives. She suggested the applicant include more landscaping along the long blank expanses
of the structure. She noted there are several species shown on the schedule but not included on the landscape plan. She noted she would like to see the final landscape plan prior to
approval.
Mr. Howe stated he found no issues with the project.
Mr. Carpenter concurred with Mr. Raznoff’s comments on the access being right in/right out. He commended the applicant on the look of the structure.
Chairperson Smith stated the variation in building style compared to what has been designed and constructed further north along North 19th Avenue was a desirable feature. She stated
she was concerned with the number of accesses from Stoneridge Drive and suggested eliminating the southern most access, which would allow the installation of more parking and landscaping.
Planner Honatke explained the efforts of the PUD guidelines to control traffic numbers and speed.
MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to approve application #Z-03012 with the modified conditions as presented by staff, with the addition of condition #14, “The final landscape
plan is to be reviewed and approved by Ms. Asleson. The motion carried 5-0.
B. First Interstate Bank Informal #I-03008 (Honatke)
202 West Main Street
* An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a new 17,223 sq. ft. two-story structure with related site improvements.
Scott Bechtle, Ron Slade, and Phil Rotherham joined the DRB. Urban Designer/Planner Candace Honatke presented the staff memo and gave a brief description of the proposal.
Mr. Bechtle explained the accesses and the efforts they have made to gain approval with MDT for the West Main Street access. He noted the accesses from West Main Street and South Grand
Avenue are ingress only with the access on Babcock Street being two-way. He explained the landscaping, the façade materials, and the screening of the mechanical equipment.
Mr. Raznoff commented that the ingress only from Babcock Street was restrictive. He suggested that two-way access be allowed from South Grand Avenue. He clarified comments made on
previous concept plans for this site. The Board noted the drive-through was an issue. Mr. Raznoff stated he had no problem with the proposed parking; however, he noted there wouldn’t
be enough parking for the employees. He commended the applicant on the building design, stating the site is complicated.
Chairperson Smith noted the drive-through may not be necessary. Mr. Rotherham stated that to be competitive, the bank executive has stated the bank has to have a drive-through.
Mr. Bechtle asked if the design is acceptable for a formal submittal.
Chairperson Smith asked how the height of this proposal compares with previous proposals. Mr. Bechtole noted the proposed structure is somewhat shorter that the most previous one and
it does compare to the height of downtown buildings. Mr. Raznoff noted a previous submittal included an etching of a blacksmith shop on one of the windows. Chairperson Smith noted
there was no pathway for pedestrians to enter the building from the parking lot. She suggested moving the handicapped parking so those vehicles aren’t backing into the drive aisles
for the drive-through. Planner Honatke suggested moving the two spaces next to the building to the area of indicated for ingress from Grand Avenue. She stated the ingress could be
moved further to the south. She noted the former handicapped parking spaces could be made into a plaza for pedestrians. The Board discussed the location of the clock, then determined
the location was acceptable. They suggested the entrance address the intersection, then determined the proposed location was acceptable.
Mr. Carpenter commended the applicants on their design, suggesting that they address the adjacency with the church, and asked them to consider the elimination of the drive-through.
He suggested they determine if the drive-through is really necessary.
Mr. Slade asked what would happen if the bank says they have to have the drive-through and the DRB won’t recommend approval. The DRB noted they probably wouldn’t deny the project based
on the drive-through; however, it would depend on the design.
ITEM 5. FYI - Reminder – meeting with City Commission Monday, March 10, 2003 at 4:00 p.m.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
_____________________________________________
Dawn Smith, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board