Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-09-02 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Henry Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3:37 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Henry Sorenson Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Jim Raznoff Jami Morris, Assistant Planner Dan Glenn Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Dawn Smith Dick Pohl Visitors Present Frank Winkler Becky Klempel Jerry Locati Bob Gilbert ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26 AND MARCH 12, 2002 Chairperson Sorenson called for corrections or additions to either set of minutes. It was noted the minutes of February 26 were approved at the March 26th meeting. MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded, to approve the minutes of March 26, 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. (Continued from March 26,2002) Frank Winkler, applicant, and Becky Klempel, Bayliss Architects, joined the DRB. Senior Planner Dave Skelton stated the purpose of the meeting was to discuss modifications to the roofline to properly screen the mechanical equipment. Ms. Klempel reviewed the modifications she and Bill Hanson, DRB member, had devised. She noted they left the east elevation open, where the grease vent is located, and the south elevation open for an access to some equipment that regulates the mechanical equipment. Mr. Raznoff asked if options A and B are no longer viable. Ms. Klempel stated they could be considered. Mr. Raznoff asked for a listing of the materials to be used for options C and D. Ms. Klempel noted they are proposing a combination of screen and siding. Mr. Raznoff noted that Mr. Hanson’s drawing looks reasonable and should be open to the south side. He noted he favors option D. Mr. Pohl asked why the roof pitch on the mechanical equipment is different from the roof pitch of main structure. Ms. Klempel stated a matched roof pitch would make the structure taller. Mr. Pohl stated he favors option D, even though the exhaust fan is not enclosed. However, he stated he’d like to see the roof pitch match the slope of the main structure; however, with gable ends. He asked for assurance that the mesh would be repeated elsewhere on the site. Ms. Klempel noted Mr. Winkler has indicated he would include the mesh possibly in a fence and the signage. Ms. Smith asked Planner Skelton for his and the Planning Director’s comments. Planner Skelton noted they felt that agricultural-type cupolas similar to what was constructed with the Food Coop project would be adequate. Ms. Smith asked if screening could be hinged to allow access on the south elevation, and screen it. She noted she prefers option D except for the non-screening of the exhaust system. Mr. Winkler noted the Food Coop’s cupolas have open sides. Planner Skelton noted that the open sides are typical of cupolas and the mechanical equipment under discussion would have to be retrofitted to reflect a similar architectural feature. Ms. Smith noted she would support the recommendation of Staff as it fits the zoning ordinance. She stated the exhaust fan faces the residential area and should be screened. Chairperson Sorenson asked Ms. Klempel to explain how the air handling system worked. She deferred to Mr. Winkler, who noted the air is exchanged within the units. Chairperson Sorenson note in Option C, with the mesh all around the screen, the mechanical equipment will be visible through it and wasn’t screening any of the equipment. He would favor Option D. He was concerned that a cupola type feature wouldn’t work. He stated it would be more appealing if the gable ends were solid and the perforated, screen part in it between the ends with the exhaust duct retrofitted. He noted the screen around the other equipment should have matching roof slopes, the ends solid, with a door for access. Ms. Klempel noted the siding is proposed for the center and not the ends to provide space between the pieces of equipment. She noted they have to be careful of the weight of the screening device. Ms. Klempel asked for a decision on the screening. Planner Skelton noted the comments of the DRB would be forwarded to the Planning Director, who will make the final decision on this matter. Mr. Pohl noted there is not a consensus among the Board members. He stated if the fixture is to look like a cupola, it should be constructed from the peak of the roof. Ms. Klempel noted if the structure would be even larger, and, as proposed, it is a huge structure. Planner Skelton noted he feels there is consensus on Option D. Chairperson Sorenson noted he wouldn’t vote for Option D. He then summarized the comments from the DRB, noting some favored the items, but not all members: 1. Options A, B, and C is not acceptable to the DRB. 2. The sides of the screen shall be a combination of siding and screening. 3. Screen with the smaller openings is preferred. 4. The roof pitch of the screening should match the roof pitch of the main structure. 5. The screening should be on all sides of the screening device, including the grease exhaust. 6. The mechanical equipment should be retrofitted to fit the cupola. 7. The control section of the mechanical equipment should be screened by a hinged section for access. 2. JLA Office Building MaSP COA/DEV #Z-02043 (Morris) 1007 East Main Street * A Major Site Plan Application and a Certificate of Appropriateness, with a deviation for roof height, to construct a 15,852 square foot building for office and retail establishments. Jerry Locati and Bob Gilbert joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report. Mr. Locati presented the project, noting he was trying to extend the Downtown Historic District to the east, all the while maintaining a classy look with minimal signage. Ms. Smith asked if the lighting could be retrofitted with cut-off shields. Planner Morris noted it was possible. Mr. Pohl asked about traffic circulation and if the parking lot was located at the high point of the hill. Mr. Gilbert indicated the location of the highest point. Mr. Pohl stated the parking lot seems to be deadended in three places, therefore, traffic doesn’t flow in this design. Mr. Locati noted a future building will tie into the parking lot. He noted he could put in a temporary road to connect the two drive aisles. Mr. Raznoff asked for clarification on the topography of the lot. Mr. Locati noted the hill drops off at the property line with a gentle slope towards Main Street. Mr. Raznoff asked if they are looking at further development to the east. Mr. Locati noted they are looking at further development, however, the building hasn’t been designed yet. Ms. Smith commended the architect on the design of an exterior staircase, and the pitched roof. She asked if they considered residential uses on the third floor. Mr. Locati noted the market is for commercial space on that level. Ms. Smith stated she favored a continuation of the main street lighting through to this project. She stated she is comfortable with Staff’s conditions. Mr. Pohl commented that Main Street keeps getting longer and longer. He stated he would rather it become deeper. However, he stated the proposed structure is handsome. He noted he isn’t comfortable with the landscape plan. Mr. Raznoff noted he supports the deviation for the height. Mr. Glenn commended the placement of the building towards the street with the parking behind it. He was concerned with the size of the front yard setback. Planner Morris noted the setback is 25 feet in the B-2 District. Mr. Glenn noted he would support a deviation to allow the structure closer to the street. Mr. Locati noted he would like to move the structure as close to the street as possible. Chairperson Sorenson asked Mr. Locati his opinions on Staff’s conclusions. Clarification was provided that the requirement would allow for either scored and pigmented concrete or a raised walkway. Mr. Gilbert noted he was concerned with the condition on raising the pedestrian walkway. He would like the Board’s support on the historic lighting and the setback deviation suggestion. Chairperson Sorenson noted the Board likes to reward good design. He noted he would support a deviation for the lighting, and if cutoff shields are required on this project, then they should also be required downtown. He noted he would encourage pulling the structure up to the street and continue the historic lighting. Mr. Gilbert asked if they are too late in the process to request a deviation to move the structure five feet towards the street. Planner Morris noted it would require re-noticing of the adjoiners; however, the newspaper notice hasn’t been published. MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded, to recommend approval of the project, with a recommendation to move the structure as close to the street as possible and extend the historical lighting, support of the height deviation, and request the parking lot, in the interim between this and a future structure, have a loop connecting the two deadend drive aisles, and with Staff’s conditions. Mr. Pohl noted he would support a five foot deviation but would not support placing the structure on the property line. Mr. Glenn clarified that his motion included moving the structure to the property line. Mr. Raznoff, Chairperson Sorenson, and Mr. Glenn voted for the motion, with Ms. Smith and Mr. Pohl voting against it. MOTION: Following discussion, Mr. Glenn moved, Mr. Pohl seconded, to rescind the vote. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Ms. Smith moved, Mr. Pohl seconded, to amend the first motion by recommending support of either a deviation or a variance, which ever the applicant wishes to pursue, on the front setback. The amendment carried unanimously. The motion carried unanimously. ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Glenn asked if the clubhouse on College Street in the MacDonald project will be demolished. Planner Morris noted it is to be demolished, the action being approved by Commission. Mr. Glenn noted he felt that went entirely against what the DRB had recommended. Planner Morris noted that the property owner’s argument was the potential cost of bringing it up to code would have been substantial. Ms. Smith noted she would like the Board to send a letter to Frank Winkler telling him why his proposal for modifications to an approved site plan had to be reviewed by the Board. She stated it was the fault of the architect’s design and not a fault of this Board or the Planning Office. She stated the building would never have been approved if it had been presented like it currently exists. Mr. Glenn noted a letter may not change the situation. Chairperson Sorenson concurred. Discussion followed on the status of a letter which had previously been designated to be written. Mr. Glenn noted the letter didn’t get written. He noted he and Mr. Hanson met separately with Planning Staff, who clarified the current amendments are a bandaid effort with a major rewrite coming soon. He noted the DRB didn’t support the current amendments being done as a major rewrite is needed. He discussed the workshop he and Mr. Hanson attended using the amended zone code. He noted the drawing he and Mr. Hanson designed couldn’t be done following those rules. He noted the development community at the workshop stated they wanted specific rules and requirements. Chairperson Sorenson suggested Mr. Glenn contact Mr. Hanson to write the letter. The secretary was asked to put election of officers on the next agenda. MOTION: Mr. Raznoff moved, Mr. Glenn seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 5:23 p.m. ____________________________________ Henry Sorenson, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board