Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-26-02 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2002 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice Chairperson Jim Raznoff called the meeting to order at 3:37 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Jim Raznoff Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Dick Pohl Susan Kozub, Assistant Planner Bill Hanson Jody Sanford, Recording Secretary Dawn Smith Nichole Wills ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26 AND MARCH 12, 2002 Vice Chairperson Raznoff called for corrections or additions to the minutes or February 26 or March 12, 2002. MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes of February 26, 2002 as presented. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Vice Chairperson Raznoff seconded, to approve the minutes of March 12, 2002 as presented. The motion carried unanimously. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Frank’s Custom Catering Modifications to FSP, #Z-01127 (Skelton) 548 East Babcock * An Application for Modifications to an approved Final Site Plan to provide screening for rooftop mechanical equipment. Frank Winkler, applicant, and Becky Klempel, Bayliss Architects joined the DRB. Senior Planner Dave Skelton presented the Staff Report, noting the purpose of the application is a request to modify a previously approved site plan by considering screening for the mechanical equipment. He noted that when Staff and ADR staff originally reviewed the site plan, the application did not accurately indicate how large the mechanical equipment would be. He stated Ms. Klempel of Bayliss Architects has prepared two options for screening: Option 1 would be to screen with a frame of the same siding similar to that used on the building, or Option 2 to use a metal frame covered with perforated sheet metal. He stated that Jim Jenks, the City’s Historic Preservation Planner, had commented at an earlier meeting with the applicant and Staff that Option 1 was preferable as it would be compatible with the existing structure. Planner Skelton noted the DRB could consider other options. He noted Mr. Winkler had indicated he liked Option 2 because it’s lighter and roof loads were an issue. He stated that Staff recommended a proposal similar to that of Option 1. Ms. Klempel stated the applicant had concerns with roof load and combustibility of the hardiplank material proposed for Option 1. She noted the mesh sample she had supplied earlier was the only product available at the time; however, she presented another sample, which had a smaller mesh that could be painted. She stated a person won’t be able to see the wood grain from 12 to 15 feet away. She stated a mesh option was used at Spanish Peaks, and it is effective in that location. She noted if hardiplank were used, the overall screening structure would be larger as one end would require mesh for air circulation. She stated mesh would be easier to maintain and replace. In response to Mr. Pohl’s question as to how the mechanical screening was missed during the review, Planner Skelton stated the mechanical equipment, which was installed, was not approved as part of the minor site plan review application and referred to the original exterior elevations included in the DRB packets. He stated if the newly installed equipment had been initially proposed, it probably would not have been approved. Planner Skelton stated Historic Preservation Planner Jenks had worked with mesh screening in other areas of the community, and had not found it desirable. Mr. Winkler asked if merely painting the mechanical equipment so it blends might be a consideration. In response to Mr. Pohl’s question regarding the incorporation of mesh elsewhere on the structure to tie the building and the screening together, Ms. Klempel noted it might be possible to include it on the railings. . In response to Mr. Hanson, who asked about the size of the fan in the mechanical equipment, Mr. Winkler stated one fan weighed 600 pounds and another fan weighed 250 pounds. Mr. Hanson asked if there had been any discussion during the initial review of just screening the large fan and not the small fan. He stated there should be a method for addressing weight load and combustibility issues. Planner Skelton noted the discussion in the initial review indicated installation of a single rooftop mechanical unit. However, whether rooftop or ground level, one or two units, under the Zoning Ordinance all mechanical equipment must be properly screened. He noted this structure was constructed last year. He noted the Historic Preservation Planner was trying to avoid a commercial look in this location. He stated Staff wanted a screening device that complemented the existing building and the surrounding neighborhoods. In response to Vice Chairperson Raznoff, Ms. Klempel stated a hardiplank screen would add 1,000 pounds to the building, which would require some structural work. She stated the calculations on the size of the trusses, which would be required, hadn’t been done because they wanted to get a reaction from DRB. She noted the structure was located near other industrial/commercial uses. Mr. Pohl noted he prefers the mesh screen, because it would reduce the massiveness of it. However, he stated he would prefer the metal be incorporated elsewhere in the building, such as railings, light fixture, shutters, etc., to tie it together, thus making it look less like a retrofit. Mr. Hanson suggested the screen around the air intake unit could be constructed of lightweight metal tubing with a gable top causing it to look like a barn dormer. He noted it could be brought closer to the hood to allow a tighter screen. . He stated he would support the mesh, if it included details simulating an old barn vent. He responded to Ms. Klempel suggestion of installing a gate for maintenance, stating he would prefer to leave that one side off altogether, with the exhaust fan painted to match the screen due the grease situation. Ms. Wills stated she concurred with other DRB members’ comments; however, Mr. Hanson’s recommendation might look similar to Pizza Hut, which wouldn’t be appropriate. She asked if the intake unit could be placed on the ground. Mr. Winkler stated it couldn’t be placed on the ground. Ms. Smith stated she was concerned about people who construct features and/or install equipment without going through the review process. She noted retrofits usually aren’t the best answer. She stated she doubted the rooftop equipment would have been approved in the initial review. She noted she was concerned the metal screening would increase mechanical noise. Mr. Winkler stated noise wasn’t an issue . Ms. Smith suggested using a combination of mesh for lightweight and hardiplank for visual effects with mesh on shorter elevations and plank on the longer ones. She noted she was concerned with grease collecting on the screen. Mr. Hanson noted the grease tends to dissipate and go wherever the wind goes. However, it needs to be cleaned on a regular basis. Mr. Winkler stated it needs to clean on regular basis for licensing requirements. He stated the unit gets hot; therefore, he worries about hardiplank being a fire hazard. Ms. Smith stated she concurs with staff’s concerns about creating a precedent for construction without approval. She stated her first choice would be a more creative design with her second choice would be to use staff’s recommendations. Vice Chairperson Raznoff noted he would prefer to draft a compromise between Options 1 and 2 by balancing weight and aesthetic issues, and protecting the neighborhood. Mr. Hanson noted he sensed the Board was not generally comfortable with either option. He stated the designs proposed actually seem to emphasize the problem. He suggested the applicant re-think his screening proposal and bring the new idea to the Board. Planner Skelton stated Staff wants to do something workable for everyone. He noted he would prefer to screen all of the mechanical equipment instead of painting a portion of it as in would not meet the intended purpose of the zoning ordinance, or the spirit of the conservation overlay district. Mr. Hanson suggested the applicant check with City Building Department for clearance requirements around the units. Mr. Winkler noted he is about one month from requesting temporary occupancy. Planner Skelton stated that would allow some opportunity for additional review by DRB. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Ms. Smith seconded, to continue the review of the application to allow an alternative screening design to be brought back to DRB for review. Ms. Klempel asked for clarification on the type of materials the Board would consider appropriate as she heard it would be a combination of wood and metal mesh. She noted she understood also that the exhaust system isn’t required to be screened. Planner Skelton noted the Bozeman Municipal Ordinance requires that all mechanical equipment be screened. Vice Chairperson Raznoff asked if the Director of Planning and Community Development would make the final decision. Planner Skelton noted he would; however, with the continuance there is ample time for the DRB to consider a better solution. The motion carried unanimously. ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW 1. C’mon Inn Informal, #I-02005 (Kozub) Valley Commons Drive * An Informal Application for advice and comment on a hotel located in the I-90/North 19th Entryway Overlay Districts. Assistant Planner Susan Kozub introduced the project. She noted Staff had the following informal comments: The proposed pole sign doesn’t meet the sign code. Need boulevard trees along Valley Center. The entrance should have some upgraded landscaping. Would require a berm between building and street. Parking seems adequate. Need to limit unbroken rows of parking to a max 100 feet. Need a detail on how the loading berth would be screened from the road. Pedestrian circulation – sidewalk is needed along the building to avoid walking through parking lot. Stress public outdoor areas with picnic tables, benches, etc. Development should have a soft green entrance to the City of Bozeman. Needs DRB comments to help applicant in preparation of formal MaSP w/COA Application. Ms. Smith noted it’s important that people have the opportunity to walk to amenities. She stated she liked the building design. She noted she agreed with Planner Kozub’s comments regarding pedestrian access. She stated she preferred the Missoula sign example; however, she noted she would like the sign to include some of the building elements, such as timbers. She questioned how the roof pitch would be reviewed under the proposed zoning amendments. She suggested the applicant consider “dark skies” lighting issues. She also suggested installing a door from the pool area out to a nice lawn area. The applicant noted he had met with Planner Karin Caroline regarding lighting issues. He thanked Ms. Smith for her suggestion to add outdoor amenities. Ms. Wills commended the applicant for including photos with the application. She suggested placing the service access at the rear of the building away Valley Center Drive. She asked if all C’mon Inns have this appearance. The applicant noted there are three designs, of which this is #3. Ms. Wills encouraged them to create a structure unique for Bozeman’s situation by customizing the franchise buildings as much as possible. She suggested including more stone veneer or special paint colors. Mr. Hanson stated he was supportive of the steeper roof pitch, and suggested the applicant visit with Planning and Community Development Department Director Andrew Epple regarding the variance procedure. He noted, on site plan, the handicapped stalls didn’t work well. He suggested rotating the parking area to the rear of the lot to create a larger landscaping area for public space. He noted the sidewalks along building would protect the structure as well as provide pedestrian access. He suggested the addition of a patio near the pool for summertime use. He asked that the formal application site plan show land uses on adjacent properties. The applicant stated he had met with the adjacent property owner to discuss methods to connect the inn to the future restaurant. Mr. Pohl suggested switching the building orientation to allow the motoring public to view the front elevation of the building. He stated he was concerned about pedestrian access. Vice Chairperson Raznoff concurred with changing the orientation thereby locating the entrance nearer to the interchange, which, unfortunately, moved the pool exposure to the north. He stated he had concerns about the parking arrangement and that ADA requirements had not been adequately addressed. He continued that the curb ramps were to be located away from the sidewalk, the drive aisles should be correctly sized, and mechanical equipment must be screened-including the huge pieces of mechanical equipment for the pool area. 2. Owenhouse Ace Hardware Informal, #I-02006 (Kozub) Huffine Lane, between State Capitol Employees Credit Union and Montana Woolen Mill An Informal Application for advice and comment on a 63,000+ square foot hardware store located in the West Main Entryway Overlay District. Dick Prugh (architect), Corey Johnson (architect), and Larry Bowman (Owenhouse ACE Hardware owner and applicant) joined the DRB Assistant Planner Susan Kozub introduced the project. She noted the project is approximately 63,000 square feet in size, which would fall under the moratorium on retail spaces over 50,000 square feet and was approved by the City Commission March 25, 2002, according to the Planning Director. Mr. Bowman ( Larry) stated the size of the building is due to the needs of a hardware store. He noted the site slopes towards the north. He stated he is proposing a basement storage area. He noted that, currently, they store merchandise all over town. He noted they plan to continue the machine repair shop with the service entrance and machine repair entrance away from the main customer entrance. He stated they spent a considerable amount of time designing the entry as they want to orient it towards Main Street and the mall area. He noted they had met with MDT regarding the entrance and access from Huffine Lane. He stated the bike shop would also be located on this site with a separate entrance. He noted they have included an access at the rear of the structure for employee access to the park. Mr. Pohl asked if the applicant was locked into a single entrance from Huffine Lane. He was concerned about traffic circulation with the proposed design. He suggested aligning the access with one of the drive aisles. He noted he’d like to see more emphasis on people arriving at the bike shop on bikes and a more bike friendly circulation of traffic. Mr. Pohl suggested more articulation on the north elevation, and a massing of landscaping materials incorporated into berms. He suggested providing a space to “try out” bikes. Mr. Hanson commented it would be nice to get connection to the park, which might allow a potential buyer to test a bike on the trail around the ponds. He was concerned about the sea of asphalt on east side of site, and suggested the addition of more landscaping. The applicant noted they have negotiated an agreement with the credit union to share retention ponds. He noted they plan to install clerestory windows to help orient customers and provide natural lighting. Mr. Hanson suggested the addition of skylights to provide natural lighting. In response to Ms. Wills’ concern with the vacant downtown location, the applicant noted as they own the building downtown, they would sell or lease it to someone else. Ms. Wills stated she wanted a stronger connection to the park and pond area. The applicant noted the governing body probably won’t allow use of the park by private businesses. However, he stated he would investigate obtaining an access into the mall parking lot at the northeast corner. He stated the orientation of the structure towards the mall was deliberate, because some people will go to the hardware store while other family members are at the mall. DRB members suggested moving the display windows to the front of the store, flanking the entry doors. They asked for a list of the building materials. They noted the entryway was not at a human scale. Mr. Johnson (Corey) noted most of the materials are CMU base, with variation between smooth and scored faces. He noted they may use different colors for the bike shop to have it stand out from the hardware store. Ms. Smith stated she would encourage the use of more detail on the north and west sides with awnings. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Design Review Board, Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Pohl seconded, to adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. __________________________________________ Jim Raznoff, Vice Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board