Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-29-02 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2002 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Acting Chairperson Bill Hanson, called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m., and the recording secretary, Jennifer Willems, recorded the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Bill Hanson Jami Morris, Assistant Planner Dick Pohl Don Grund, Assistant Planner Joanne Noel Jennifer Willems, Recording Secretary Dawn Smith Nichole Wills Visitors Present Chris Nixon Becki Klempel Tom Simkins R. Vandervos Elizabeth Clifford Dick Prugh ITEM 2. PROJECT REVIEW A. Northern Rockies PUD - #Z-00171 - (Morris/Koltz) Ellis Street ( A modification of an approved Site Plan to request a change of the parking lot street light. Planner Jami Morris presented the project and reviewed the Staff Memo reiterating the relaxation which was granted to the applicant and the modification of the light standards. Ms. Klempel joined the DRB. She explained the reason for the light modification and noted the cost of the lighting differed by $70,000.00. She stated the light proposed for the modification was the same light which was used on the American Bank and Spanish Peaks projects. Mr. Pohl asked about the amount of light output. Ms. Klempel explained that the light charts were very similar and should illuminate the same. She noted the fixture had been approved by the City as far as qualifications. Mr. Hanson asked staff if there had been discussion about negotiations on other aspects of the site plan. Planner Morris stated there had been no discussion about negotiations. Mr. Hanson asked the applicant if negotiations were an option. Ms. Klempel stated they hadn’t addressed the issue with the owners, noting if there were ample savings then there would be a possibility of upgrading other aspects of the Site Plan. Mr. Hanson asked Ms. Klempel if there were other light choices possible other than those presented. Ms. Klempel stated they had stepped up from the regular shoe box style. Discussion on other light choices continued. Mr. Hanson asked Planner Morris if parking was above code requirements. Planner Morris explained the applicant used the maximum calculations for the site and noted there was potential for having extra parking spaces on site. She explained the parking situation. Mr. Pohl explained the light change goes from a decorative fixture to a functional fixture. He noted he would rather see something less architectural and less stylized. He stated since the present fixture had been approved on other projects, he was comfortable with the choice. Ms. Smith stated the lighting change was too significant, and suggested the proposed light was too detracting. She stated when the PUD was written the light fixtures were chosen with a higher level of development in mind. She noted she would be receptive to something in the middle or a reduction, but was not comfortable with the exchange. Ms. Noel concurred with Ms. Smith that the change was too great and found it hard to believe there were no in between light choices and suggested less parking as a resolution. Ms. Noel stated she would not support the change. Mr. Hanson stated he thought in some areas of Bozeman the existing light fixtures were worse than the ones proposed, but the original light proposed had architectural character and would add to the area. He stated the site held a unique spot making the change hard to make due to the extreme lighting coming from the baseball fields. He noted he would not be comfortable with the change in lighting but felt there was a light which could work. MOTION: Ms. Smith moved, Ms. Noel seconded, to deny the request for modification. The motion carried 3-1, with Mr. Pohl in opposition. B. Simkins-Hallin Mendenhall Warehouse MaSP/COA/Dev - #Z-01235 (Grund/Murray) 609 East Mendenhall Avenue ( A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations to allow the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a 7,500 sf warehouse for building materials and a mechanic shop and related site improvements on property located at 609 East Mendenhall Avenue. Planner Don Grund reviewed the Staff Report. He handed out a letter from the Bozeman Tree Advisory Board to the DRB. Dick Prugh, Tom Simkin, and Elizabeth Clifford joined the DRB. Planner Grund stated the Tree Advisory Board would like to see a grass boulevard and specific trees used in the boulevard planting. He reviewed staff conditions, noting signage had not been proposed at this time, but that it had a standard condition for approval. Planner Grund stated condition #2 was a standard condition and the applicant had not shown mechanical equipment on the elevations which would have to be looked at before Final Site Plan. Mr. Prugh explained the project was for a warehouse and a shop for the storage of materials and repair. He explained that semi-trucks now have to park in the street and detach trailers, noting with the new proposal semis would be able to pull into the lot. He noted the lot would also allow for employee parking. Mr. Prugh stated the alley was not a through alley and explained the reason for requesting a deviation for parking in this area. He presented pictures of the alley and the building next door. He explained they were proposing a simple warehouse building with modified gables on the end. He stated the building would be a beige color. Ms. Noel asked if the applicant was proposing to remove the white house and the tree on its right. Mr. Prugh stated “yes”. Mr. Simkins stated the existing shop building would remain. He explained the building was not tall enough for boom trucks, and noted the tree was in front of the door to the building. Mr. Prugh stated the alley width would remain the same. Ms. Clifford stated the alley width is currently 21 feet. Planner Grund stated the deviation was requested because the alley was suppose to be 26 feet, he noted the applicant would pave the alley. Ms. Smith asked about the proposed flood light. Mr. Simkin stated it will be on at night and would not be directed towards housing. Ms. Clifford stated there was just one floodlight for parking in the rear. Mr. Rusty Vandervos explained the location of the light. Mr. Pohl asked about the new curb cut for vehicular access. Ms. Clifford explained that one of the curb cuts currently exists. Mr. Vandervos stated the curb cut was not used much. Mr. Simkins explained the idea was to have flow for trucks so they did not have to back out onto Wallace Avenue. Mr. Pohl asked about the adjacency in zoning. Planner Grund explained. Mr. Pohl stated the storm water had been maintained on site and noted any space left on the site was used as a detention basin. Mr. Vandervos stated the access where the tree is located will be moved. Planner Grund stated the curb cuts are noted on the plan. Mr. Simkin stated they needed a door on this particular side of the building. Mr. Vandervos explained the function of the door. Mr. Hanson asked about drainage. Mr. Vandervos stated they had tried to split the drainage. Mr. Simkins explained that it was not feasible for a dry well. Mr. Simkins explained the use of the bay. Planner Grund explained suggestions for the boulevard. Mr. Hanson asked for clarification of materials. He noted three different types of metal siding. Mr. Vandervos explained the different types of metal. Mr. Hanson noted a textured difference in the material. Ms. Clifford stated the metal would be stone beige. Mr. Hanson asked if there were long term plans for the property beyond what is there right now. Mr. Simkins explained there is a cabinet shop, existing storage, and a shop. He stated the site will be used to help with the operation of the business. He explained the site uses. Ms. Smith asked Planner Grund about the backing of traffic onto Mendenhall Street, and if backing was allowed. Planner Grund stated he assumed it is allowable. Mr. Simkin stated “The Mill”, across the street had trucks backing out of it all of the time. Ms. Smith noted concerns about using a public right-of-way to back out onto. Discussion on vehicle access continued. Mr. Vandervos explained the design layout for semi-access. Ms. Smith asked if the applicant thought of more than one color for the building. Mr. Vandervos stated the building would be two tone, the roof white and the building beige. He suggested they could add color. Mr. Hanson asked for clarification on condition #6. Planner Grund stated the condition should state “in the site triangle”. Ms. Noel stated while the zoning is M-1, the site is in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and noted the design of the building did not blend with the surrounding neighborhood and area. She stated different materials could be explored to provide aesthetic character to enhance the idea of the M-1 zoning. Ms. Noel stated all of the accesses, the width of the alley, and the deviations she objected too and would not support. She stated the surrounding site was very congested and noted she was opposed to removing the tree. She suggested trees provide landscaped elements. Ms. Noel suggested eliminating one door, keeping the tree, and reducing the access would help. She stated she was not convinced there was enough clarity in the details of the building, and noted the flood light was too bright for the back parking area. She would like to see different lighting fixtures explored. Mr. Simkins stated that Benjis also backed out onto the street. Ms. Noel stated her main objection was that the site is located the Overlay District and the project does nothing to address that. Ms. Smith concurred with Ms. Noel. She stated there is a definite lack in the criteria for the site being in the Conservation Overlay. She reviewed the issues which in her mind, made the project too big for the site. She noted she was opposed with backing onto Mendenhall Street and was not comfortable with the design of the building or clear on the colors and the differences in the siding. Ms. Smith stated she did not have a problem with the usage in the M-1. She suggested Montana Tile and Stone were examples of how to make a metal building attractive. She supported the Tree Advisory Boards suggestions with the boulevard trees. She stated the floodlight may not be within City code and stated the illumination may be too bright for the area. Ms. Smith suggested a full time, smaller light on the building and then a flood light with a motion sensor. Mr. Pohl stated he would argue the area was highly industrial, and noted he had a problem with the footprint of the building taking up so much space. He stated the retention basin would definitely affect the remaining tree, noting the site is paved or roofed. Mr. Pohl stated he would support the use of street trees around the perimeter to unify the whole area. He would like to see an alternative to the drive access on the south side of the building to reduce the need for vehicular access on this side of the site. Mr. Pohl stated he had no concerns with the deviation for parking in the rear. Mr. Hanson stated he felt this part of downtown truly had an industrial character, but the building occupied too much of the site and was very constrained. He noted the pockets of landscaping were eaten up with the 3 foot detention wells. He suggested relocating the driveway, making the size of the driveway narrower, and use a smaller door. Mr. Hanson stated the building was very understated and he would not like to see the tree removed, and suggested the retention pond would kill the tree in time. He stated there needed to be other areas used as landscaping and then capture it back for retention. He stated he was in support of the street trees. Mr. Hanson suggested the existing building and the new one made the site too small. He suggested removing the existing building and make the new building bigger. He noted he was in support of the deviations and the site lighting, suggesting there were other options such as pole lighting. Mr. Hanson suggested, to appease some of the concerns of the DRB, the applicant should consider saving the existing tree, having alternate solutions for site retention, and generate other pieces of land for retention. He stated the colors of the building were not critical at this point and conditions could be made on a range of colors for the building. Mr. Prugh suggested a galvanized metal material. Mr. Hanson stated he thought it could be very attractive. Mr. Prugh stated the outside storage now looked terrible and he disagreed with the parking argument, suggesting the new site would be better for traffic flow. He stated the size of the building was related to the size of the materials stored on site. Mr. Simkins suggested the surrounding land was used to its capacity. MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Ms. Noel seconded to deny the project. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanson stated there were very few significant conditions from staff. He stated the DRB felt the size of the building was too great. He noted the Conservation Overlay District posed big issues such as material used, preserving existing trees, and lack of street trees were big concerns of the DRB. The motion carried 3-1 with Mr. Hanson in objection to the motion. ITEM 3. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Noel moved, Ms. Smith seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. _________________________________________________ Bill Hanson, Acting Chairperson Design Review Board