HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-02 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2002
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
The DRB meeting for February 12, 2002 was called to order at 3:35 p.m. by Chairperson Henry Sorenson. Jennifer Willems, the recording secretary, noted the attendance.
MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Henry Sorenson Don Grund, Associate Planner
Bill Hanson Susan Kozub, Assistant Planner
Dan Glenn Karin Caroline, Assistant Planner
Joanne Noel Dave Skelton, Senior Planner
Dick Pohl Jennifer Willems, Recording Secretary
Dawn Smith
Nichole Wills
Jim Raznoff
Visitors Present
Tom Simkins Rusty Vandivor Chris Nixon
Shaw Thompson Nate Thompson Matthew Killian
Mark Chandler Elizabeth Clifford Dick Prugh
Gene Cook Susan Swimley David Kautz
Dave Guetig Lee Hutahn
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 29, 2002
Chairperson Henry Sorenson called for additions or changes to the minutes. Mr. Pohl noted a change on page 2. Mr. Pohl moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as amended.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
A. Simkins-Hallin Mendenhall Warehouse MaSP/COA/Dev - #Z-01235 (Grund)
609 East Mendenhall Avenue
( Considerations to modifications to 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.
Assistant Planner Don Grund stated the Board had initially recommended denial of the project due to the amount of retention on site, the removal of existing trees, concerns about backing
from parking spaces into the public right-of-way, and the boulevard landscaping. He stated the
applicant has addressed those concerns and the architectural style of the building. Planner Grund stated the applicant has proposed to move the garage door to the west elevation. He
reviewed the staff memo. He stated the proposed lighting didn’t meet code.
Dick Prugh, Mike Chandler, and Elizabeth Clifford, joined the DRB. Mr. Prugh reviewed the changes made, stating they eliminated the garage door on the south side and reviewed the changes
proposed for the retention ponds. He stated the existing trees will be saved and six additional trees were proposed. He stated they have changed the lighting and asked DRB to recommend
approval of the proposed lighting located over the doors. He displayed samples of the proposed siding.
Mr. Hanson asked staff about the previous review. Planner Grund stated the applicant has agreed to install tree grates around the trees in the sidewalk in lieu of a boulevard.
Mr. Hanson stated the building hasn’t changed much, and the site is constrained. He noted that overall he doesn’t have problems with the architecture. He stated the site is improved
by having the materials stored inside the building. He stated the light in the rear of the building is bright. He stated he is in support of the project.
Ms. Smith asked about the outdoor light fixture, stating she was opposed to the projection of the proposed light and suggested a wall mounted light would better meet code requirements.
Ms. Smith stated she appreciated the changes made.
Mr. Pohl stated he supported the newly submitted plan. He stated hemlock was not a hardy species in this area. He noted he was pleased about the landscaped treatment around the site
and is in support of the project.
Ms. Wills stated she is in support of the project. She noted she would like to see something brighter and different than what is proposed, but is in support of the project as presented.
She suggested adding awnings above the windows.
Mr. Raznoff stated that he appreciated the design progress and is in support of the project.
Mr. Glenn stated he had no comments, as he was not at the last meeting.
Chairperson Sorenson stated that the structure is very functional and pedestrian. He would have liked to see more architectural design and the elimination of the deviations. He stated
the improvements to the site, including saving the trees, have changed his initial opinion of the project. He stated he is comfortable with the architect working with staff on the lighting
concerns.
MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Pohl seconded, to recommend approval of the project with conditions as identified in the staff report. The motion carried 7-0 with Ms. Noel abstaining.
B. Triple T Woodworking PUD - #Z-01244 – (Grund)
601 East Cottonwood Street
( A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development to allow the use of the existing building for a small retail and woodworking op operation, including three caretaker
units on the property located at 601 East Cottonwood Street.
Nate and Shaw Thompson joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Don Grund presented the staff report.
Mr. Hanson asked the applicants if they concurred with staff’s conclusions, to which Shaw Thompson stated they did. Mr. Hanson stated he liked the project and that the building was
being brought back to life. He noted he liked the colors and stated the project was positive.
Ms. Noel stated she was in support of the project.
Ms. Smith stated she was confused on the locations for parking and trash collection. Planner Grund explained how the parking was calculated. He stated the three residential units are
for the owners and the workers, therefore, there was not a need for as many parking spaces. He proposed the elimination of the proposed parking along Wallace Street. Mr. Shaw Thompson
stated they will not have a dumpster as all their refuse will be stored inside.
Mr. Pohl stated his concern was with the dumpster and the randomness of the landscape design.
Ms. Wills noted she appreciated the historical background included in the project review and noted she was in support of the project. She stated she was confused on the materials to
be used. Mr. Nate Thompson explained the materials and presented a picture of the siding.
Mr. Raznoff stated he was still confused about where the parking would occur. Planner Grund stated the four stalls in the setback along Wallace Street will be eliminated. Mr. Raznoff
then stated he was in support of the project.
Mr. Glenn asked if the windows depicted were existing. Mr. Nate Thompson stated the windows were existing and were six panes each. He noted the rear of the building was covered by
a warehouse and another building. He stated the new windows were on the rear elevation with double panes containing dividers for energy savings. Mr. Shaw Thompson indicated the windows
which would be replaced.
Chairperson Sorenson stated there were no elevations for the four car garage so he didn’t understand how the garage impacted the site. Mr. Shaw Thompson stated it would match the building
exactly with the same roof pitch and siding. Chairperson Sorenson stated he was in favor of the project.
Mr. Glenn stated the asphalt drive in front of the building would look odd. He stated his main
concern was the overall look of the project, including the landscaping around the project, the forefront, and the standard ground scape. He stated he didn’t agree with the requirement
for asphalt and suggested a gravel driveway.
Planner Grund stated the Historic Preservation Planner Jim Jenks had stated the project would be appropriate with the historical aspects of the site and neighborhood. He stated conditions
are suggested which would require the site be brought up to modern standards. He stated the City Engineer has additional conditions pertaining to curb and gutter.
MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded, to approve the project with staff’s recommendations and the addition of condition #7 - that the garage match in architectural character
and detailing with the existing building, subject to review and approval by the Department of Planning and Community Development.
Mr. Glenn stated the gravel drive would treat the building as a historical feature. Mr. Sorenson asked him to fashion an amendment to the motion for an additional condition.
Mr. Hanson stated that, even though other projects have been required to pave the parking lot, he concurred with the historic character of the structure. However, he continued, the
existing structures were built away from other structures at the time. He noted the town has evolved around them providing a different character. He stated this part of town will be
built up with other projects and he would not like to have others follow with gravel surfacing of parking lots.
Mr. Glenn stated curb and gutter and asphalt create a non-porous surface.
Ms. Smith stated the building was not being used in its historical capacity, it would be used for manufacturing retail and industrial. She stated that a business with a commercial parking
lot is a challenge when surfaced with gravel and suggested large trucks would tear up the gravel.
MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved to amend the motion to recommend the applicant replace the asphalt surface with a gravel surface to fit the historical character of the neighborhood. The motion
died due to the lack of a second.
The original motion carried 7-1 with Mr. Glenn voting against the motion.
C. Walton Homestead Subdivision Concept PUD - #Z-02004 – (Kozub)
1503 Durston Road
( A Concept PUD Plan Review to develop 35.375 acres into a mixed-use residential, professional offices, and commercial condominium Planned Unit Development.
Gene Cook, Bill Hanson, Jerry Taylor, and Kevin Cook joined the DRB. Planner Skelton presented the Staff Report, noting the location is between the mobile home parks to the west and
the potential site of the County jail and the Gallatin County Rest Home to the east. He stated the proposal was a PUD because it included 6-plexes and Walton Way as a private street.
Bill Hanson gave a slide presentation. He stated there are two key issues, the open space and pedestrian access from south and north of the site. He stated Rose Park is the largest,
nearest park to the site. He stated the adjacent area to the east is open agricultural land. He noted the Walton project would continue pedestrian access to the Bridger Peaks Town Center
to the northwest. He stated the proposal is for a condo area, apartment, office and mixed-use area at the north end. He noted North 15th Avenue would bisect the site, and noted they
propose a bend in the street to create buildable lots. He stated the applicant proposed the project to be completed in 3 phases, with phase three being the commercial north end of the
property. He described the connecting streets to be installed between Durston Road and Oak Street. He indicated the pedestrian access corridor throughout the complex. He described
the right-of-way widths. He stated the public park was intended as a private pocket park for use of the residents near Juniper Street. He stated the intent of the meandering walkways
is to get to the park.
Ms. Noel asked for clarification on the public park shown in Juniper Street. Planner Skelton stated Juniper Street is the only east-west street between Durston Road and Oak Street.
Ms. Noel stated overall the concept was strong, and she noted she had a sense that the land was densely packed with buildings. She stated she liked the idea of the central park, the
mixed uses, and the way the nodes connect.
Ms. Smith stated the project was a good example of infill, however she stated it was too dense. She would like to see one or two larger areas of park land instead of the smaller parks.
She stated the applicant should anticipate that Juniper Street would go through from North 7th Avenue to North 11th Avenue. She suggested two one-acre improved parks with smaller parks
in between. She noted she was concerned about the access from Durston Road as there were no turn lanes. She stated the trails should continue without passing through a parking lot.
She stated she was concerned with the length of the parking lots for safety reasons.
Mr. Pohl stated he would prefer a larger consolidated park space. He noted he preferred a stronger sense of neighborhood identity and liked the way the trail cuts through the condo
area. He suggested the inclusion of a pedestrian crossing at North 15th Avenue/Durston Road. He noted the nodes and the sense of identity of the neighborhood were well done. He stated
the project would be better if it included more park space. He was concerned that the linear pathway system was interrupted.
Ms. Wills asked about the existing home site and if it was the only existing homesite. Mr. Hanson stated the existing site shown is not owned by the applicant and would stay, however,
he noted two homesites would be removed. He stated one house will be moved and the other destroyed. Ms. Wills asked if the trail system connects to the Gallatin County Rest Home.
Mr. Hanson noted it didn’t, but could. Ms. Wills asked if the trailer park is integrated with the
project. Mr. Hanson stated an existing fence and a ditch provide a barrier. He stated the ditch will be re-routed closer to the property line. Mr. Cook stated the trailer park people
have indicated a wooden fence would be a possibility between the trailer park and the site. Ms. Wills asked if North 14th Avenue will be installed during the third phase even though
it is located in the county. She suggested shifting the public park to allow the development of Juniper Street. She suggested locating a pocket park in the other sector.
Mr. Raznoff stated he would support several parks instead of one big park. He suggested the trails connect the parks with the trails continuing through the park. He stated the Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board had suggested a more formal walking trail along the west side of the site.
Mr. Hanson stated the reality is that North 15th Avenue was the main access to and thru the site. He stated the meandering trails on the property are designed to be private, but to
get from point A to point B, North 15th Avenue will be the main street. He suggested landscaped berms be added as a buffer.
Mr. Glenn stated he disagreed with members of the Board who have suggested a large dedication of park land. He stated the proposal was for very low suburban density without a suburban
typology. He noted as an infill project it should have twice the density. He stated he had a general feeling that the site has too much of what had already been seen, and suggested
the project had a high concentration of the same building type. He stated the commercial portion has a suburban feel not urban. He agreed that the lots along Oak Street were good commercial
lots. He suggested twisting the buildings to align them with the street and align the commercial structures with Oak Street.
Planning Director Epple stated that, according to the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, the south side of Oak Street was intended for residential uses while the north side should have commercial
uses. Mr. Glenn suggested the residential uses be located above office or retail uses.
Chairperson Sorenson stated there are three cultures in the proposed development. He stated there should be mixing of the developments possibly. He would like to see pocket parks but
a couple of larger nodes for parks should be included. He suggested using the ditch as an amenity. Mr. Hanson stated it handles the storm run off from Durston Road. He noted it formerly
was an irrigation ditch and has been abandoned.
D. StoneRidge Center MaSP/COA - #Z-02001 – (Caroline)
2002, 2040, 2055, 2011 North 22nd Avenue
( A Major Site Plan Application to develop 2.27 acres into four single level, multi-tenant office buildings, and necessary site improvements.
MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Mr. Glenn seconded, to continue the review of application #Z-02001 to Tuesday, February 19, 2002. The motion carried unanimously.
E. Home Depot MaSP/COA/Dev - #Z-02011 – (Caroline)
NW corner of North 19th Avenue and Tschache Lane
( A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and a deviation to develop a large regional commercial area to include the Home Depot Home Improvement Retail
Center and related site improvements on 16+ acres within Phase IV of Stoneridge PUD, which consists of a total of
52.65 acres.
Lowell Springer, Dave Kautz, Dave Guetig, and Susan Swimley joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Karin Caroline reviewed the staff report. She stated that MDT has approved right turn
in and right turn out only for the North 19th Avenue ingress/egress. She reported there would be a signal installed at the intersection of Tschache Lane and North 19thAvenue. She indicated
on the site plan where the applicant had addressed recommendations made by the DRB during the informal review. She stated the applicant is requesting a deviation for the height of the
main peaked roof entrance.
Mr. Springer, applicant’s architect and representative, presented a different plan with a modified back area, and he stated it was conceptually the same plan as the one in the submittal.
He stated the entire site would consist of the Home Depot structure, with space for two other building pads. He noted he felt the concern of the DRB during the informal review was the
building’s orientation. He described the back of the building as utilitarian with a private area by the creek for employees.
Mr. Kautz stated they have added canopies over the windows and extended the roof line to enhance the elevations due to the requests of the DRB.
Mr. Springer suggested one does not see the full width of the box-like building as it is buffered by the 50’greenway corridor. Mr. Springer stated there are several pedestrian access
points. He stated they are working with MDT on traffic control and parking.
Mr. Kautz stated they have reduced the building size to 95,000 sq ft. with 331 parking spaces with landscaping. He noted Home Depot will share parking with the two future developments
with no additional parking to be provided.
Planner Caroline stated the project was reviewed under the North 19th Avenue/Oak Street Corridor Master Plan. Director Epple stated the applicants would not be required to amend the
Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. He noted that, following consultation with the legal staff on the need for a Master Plan Amendment, an amendment was not necessary for this application.
Therefore, the Master Plan Amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. Glenn stated he was concerned with the general idea of the entryway corridor becoming a series of big box stores. He stated the applicant has responded to design concerns. He asked
about the top of the columns on the garden center elevation. He noted he would rather see heavy timbers and fieldstone, and not an articulated capital.
Mr. Raznoff stated that he sees improvements on pedestrian access and facade development on all elevations of the building. He stated the intersection near Target is hazardous and the
intersection looks as if it will be the same. He stated he would like to hear the rest of the Board’s comments, then respond.
Mr. Pohl stated he liked the way the pedestrian areas are identified. He suggested the south elevation doesn’t match the rest of the building even though it is very prominent. He suggested
an additional design element on the southeast corner to balance it with the other corner. In response to Mr. Pohl’s question, Planner Caroline stated the monument sign is shown near
the main right in/right out access. Mr. Kautz noted they would welcome suggestions as to where the sign is placed. Mr. Pohl stated the main access will be from Tschache Lane. He noted
if the sign is placed near the in/out access, it won’t be seen from Tschache Lane. He suggested the sign be placed near the entrance to the lot at Tschache Lane. Mr. Springer stated
that Jason Giard of MDT has suggested a sign location which functions from both accesses.
Unrelated to the site plan review proceedings, Ms. Smith stated she doesn’t feel that regional retail falls under M-1 zoning. She stated that the west side of North 19th Avenue should
serve as a transitional area and not contain retail uses. She stated the amount of parking spaces are over the required number. She stated she does not support the increased number
of parking spaces. She noted she had a concern that the landscaping only meets 24 percent of the amount required. Planner Caroline explained the landscaping requirements were addressed
in the conditions. In response to Ms. Smith, Planner Caroline stated that snow storage has been talked about and will be relocated. She noted the applicant has met the requirements
for buffering the frontage on North 19th Avenue. Planner Caroline stated the garden center is enclosed. She explained the expandable seasonal area. She noted the parking lot lighting
meets the City’s requirements and mirrors the lighting in other areas of the Stoneridge PUD, though parking lot lighting specifications are not specified in the PUD. She noted the lighting
on the west boundary would be a lower light level with no building mounted lights. She noted there is a flag pole light proposed, and some security lighting near the entrances, which
shall meet the code.
In response to Mr. Hanson, Planner Caroline stated the water feature would be developed as part of this project, as well as two retention ponds. Mr. Hanson explained the graphic is
misleading as the stream does not directly connect with the detention pond.
Mr. Hanson suggested integrating the stone into the architecture of the building near the downspout areas. He stated overall he appreciated the applicant’s attempt to address DRB’s
concerns. He stated he preferred Home Depot’s parking lot design over Target’s and Bob Wards’ design. He complimented Planner Caroline on her staff report. He stated he was comfortable
with the project.
Planner Caroline stated the applicant was comfortable with the conditions as listed in the staff report, he and staff have resolved earlier issues. She stated condition number 22 could
be eliminated and explained why.
Chairperson Sorenson stated he felt the applicant had addressed the requests of the DRB during the informal review. He suggested placing the roof canopies far enough into the interior
of the building to prevent a “stuck on” look. He stated the pedestrian trail along the stream corridor felt like it is struggling to find room on the site and become a part of the project.
He suggested the stream looks cut off and not in the appropriate place on the site plan. Planner Caroline stated the path needed to be more natural, and the trail shouldn’t be pushed
to an area for convenience. Chairperson Sorenson noted the pedestrian path within the parking area should have clear ends that tie into the asphalt trail from the north and south.
He suggested the addition of a pedestrian area with benches. He stated the applicant has done a nice job of laying out the site.
MOTION: Mr. Raznoff moved, Mr. Pohl seconded, to recommend approval of application #Z-02011 with conditions recommended by staff, except condition #22, which is to be deleted. A condition
is to be added which alters the southeast corner canopy of the building to develop a stronger architectural element, another condition to incorporate architectural furniture along the
trail at the intersections of the pedestrian pathways and asphalt trail, and a third condition to extend the peaked entry canopies fifteen feet into the building so it becomes a more
unified element of the building. And the final condition that the garden center canopy element be moved north to the pedestrian canopy area and integrated into the pedestrian canopy.
The motion carried 4-2, with Mr. Pohl, Mr. Hanson, Mr. Raznoff, and Chairperson Sorenson voting yes, and Mr. Glenn and Ms. Smith voting in opposition.
F. Design Objectives Plan Update – (Saunders)
( Review Design Objectives Plan Update.
To be continued.
G. Zone Code Amendments – (Saunders) 1 of a 2 week review.
( Review Zone Code Amendments.
To be continued.
ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Henry Sorenson, Jr. Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board