HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-14-11 Design Review Board Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14,2011
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:37 p.m. in the
upstairs conference room of the Alfred Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street,
Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Page Huyette Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Bill Rea, Vice Chairperson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Michael Pentecost, Chairperson
Mark Hufstetler
Cristina Coddington
Carson Taylor, Commission Liaison
Visitors Present
Jim Ullman
Ted Mitchell
Randy Wild
Kirk Michels
Noella
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2011
MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Ms. Huyette seconded, to approve the minutes of October
26, 2011 as presented. The motion carried 4-0 with Ms. Coddington abstaining.
At the request of the applicant for Item 94, Chairperson Pentecost reversed the order of the items.
ITEM 4. PROEJCT REVIEW
1. Bozeman Gateway Signage Relaxation MODS TO PUD #Z-11276 (Krueger)
2880 Technology Boulevard West
* A request for modification of an approved Planned Unit Development to allow a multi-
tenant listing sign instead of the originally approved complex and address listing sign for
the proposed low profile signs.
Jim Ullman and Ted Mitchell joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the
Staff Report noting the application process under review was a Conditional Use Permit
application for the modification to the approved Bozeman Gateway Planned Unit Development.
He noted the most recent project on the site was the Kohl's store and the site was making
progress toward development overall. He stated the original PUD had received eight relaxations
Page 1 of 7
Design Review Board Minutes—December 14,2011
for subdivision and zoning requirements. He stated the proposal was a request for an additional
relaxation that was specific to signage and the Comprehensive Signage Plan for the site. He
stated the signage plan was different than that of one for a building as it included site signage.
He stated larger developments (100,000 square feet or more)were allowed more signage based
on the Comprehensive Signage Plan requirements. He stated the provision in the ordinance
allowed larger, freestanding signs that were multi-tenant and the applicant was requesting the
application of the greater allowance. He stated there was a lot of frontage to the project with
many access points and there were not many wayfinding signs. He stated Staff was supportive
of the request as the proposed signs would be subordinate to the business signage on the site. He
noted the locations of the proposed signage and added that though the signs may be contrary to
the ideal of minimizing signage Staff thought the proposed signage would be incidental on the
site. He stated there was a stipulation with regard to more individual tenant signage in the future.
Mr. Mitchell stated Planner Krueger had done and good job of explaining the proposal and he
had nothing to add. Mr. Ullman concurred with Mr. Mitchell and directed the DRB to the page
in their submittal Planner Krueger had referenced.
Chairperson Pentecost opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the
public comment period was closed.
Mr. Hufstetler asked if each sign requested would be the same. Mr. Mitchell responded the
number of tenants on the sign would be the same, but the tenant names would be different based
on the location of the tenants. Mr. Hufstetler stated the application made him think of a project
with a large number of small businesses instead of a project with a small number of large
businesses. Mr. Ullman responded that to attract smaller businesses, they would first have to
deal with the large anchor businesses which would eventually draw the smaller businesses once
the traffic basis was there. Planner Krueger added that typically, the overall sign square footage,
size, and lighting was approved and each sign would not require individual sign permits for
business signage.
Ms. Huyette asked if the primary reason for the relaxation request was to bring in larger tenants
to the site. Mr. Mitchell responded there were only five spots on each of those signs and they
would pick and choose primarily for directional wayfinding signage and flow through the site; he
added the larger square footage tenants would likely be on the sign. Mr. Ullman added that the
businesses invited to the site to see if they are interested in the location would be given more of a
presence on the site with the proposed signage. Mr. Mitchell added that so much geographic
area was occupied that it was difficult to find specific locations within the site. Ms. Huyette
stated the design guidelines indicated the site was built to resemble a historic retail center and
asked how the site signage would be differentiated from regular interstate signage. Mr. Mitchell
responded the signs on the interstate were larger for traffic at a higher rate a speed and the
proposed signs were smaller for those traveling at a lower rate of speed and more directional in
purpose.
Vice Chairperson Rea asked for clarification of what was being proposed. Planner Krueger
Page 2 of 7
Design Review Board Minutes—December 14,2011
apologized as there was an error in the application materials and directed the DRB to the
accurate rendering. Vice Chairperson Rea stated the actual square footage of the monuments
signs seemed to have decreased from the original approval. Vice Chairperson Rea asked at what
point were there enough revisions that the whole development needed reviewed again; he added
it was a concern of his.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost introduced Ms. Coddington as a new member.
Vice Chairperson Rea stated he wanted to see some dimensions on the application materials.
Planner Krueger responded the code has a standard for how much signage the development was
allotted and they were not asking for additional height or area.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he would start by being typically cranky and by tipping his hand; he added
he was not be supportive of the requested amendment as it was one step closer to changing the
overall PUD. He stated it gave him a sense that the project was intended to attract a small
number of large tenants though he did not feel the request would cause that end. He stated the
current occupants of the site are very visible and always will be. He stated he was concerned
about the additional signage and what it was indicating for the development.
Ms. Huyette stated she concurred with Mr. Hufstetler and she was concerned with the big box
store type of look that the community was struggling to keep out the Entryway Corridors. She
stated the size of the signs were not as concerning as the repetition of their design. She stated
she would like to see a more creative approach to accommodating the different types of tenants
they were attempting to attract.
Vice Chairperson Rea stated he was a little more on the fence as he liked the new sign design
better than the originally approved design. He stated his concern was the number of tenants on
each sign; he liked the page 50, revised 3/11 sign better as it held more closely to the quality of
the rest of the development, but he was not supportive of the multi-tenant aspect of the signage.
Chairperson Pentecost stated he looked at it from a different perspective and he thought a minor
change or course correction would be appropriate. He stated he would rather have fewer signs
with more tenants on each sign. He stated it was difficult to say the PUD would be the same way
forever and his only concerns were the elements of the design.
MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Ms. Huyette seconded, to forward a recommendation of
denial to the City Commission for Bozeman Gateway Signage Relaxation MODS TO PUD #Z-
11276.
Vice Chairperson Rea stated he was on the fence regarding his decision and noted the whole
point of a PUD was an effort to predict the future. He stated he did not necessarily agree with
previous DRB comments.
Mr. Hufstetler stated it was difficult to talk about the project in opposition but it was an indicator
Page 3 of 7
Design Review Board Minutes—December 14,2011
of how the project was evolving from both the City's and the developer's point of view. He
stated the purpose of a PUD was to have a development that was more planned and controlled; it
was the asset of the project. He stated he was not convinced that the recent developments on the
site were in conformance with the spirit of the PUD as it was originally conceived.
Vice Chairperson Rea stated the pole sign in contrast with the proposed monument sign made it
seem that there was too much signage; six multi-tenant signs were way too many and were not in
the spirit of Bozeman.
Ms. Huyette suggested there would be options other than the knee jerk reaction of
accommodating possible tenants. She stated signage was not always the best way to draw
customers to a store.
Vice Chairperson Rea stated that as he was driving down Huffine Lane, he would see the Kohl's
sign three times along Huffine Lane and he did not think the signs would be necessary for
wayfinding.
The motion carried 3-1 with Chairperson Pentecost voting in opposition and Ms.
Coddington abstaining.
Mr. Mitchell thanked the DRB for their consideration and asked them to go back to the original
intent of the development which the City Commission had approved; he added they had not
varied from what was originally approved one bit which included the 60,000 square foot tenant
space where Kohl's is located. He added it had cost them a ton of money to maintain the intent
of the original development and he recommended the Board look at the records to see what was
originally approved. He reiterated that he had not varied from what was approved in 2006.
ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW
1. Auto Stop Informal Il#I-11023 (Krueger)
1401 East Main Street
* An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a mechanic's
shop addition, parking/landscaping improvements, renovation of the existing structure,
and related site improvements.
Randy Wild and Kirk Michels joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the
Staff Memo noting Staff had been working on the site with the applicant and owner for some
time. He stated the intent had not changed and was to upgrade the site while utilizing an existing
business and structure. He stated the Design Objectives Plan had indicated how to apply the
guidelines based on existing conditions and without increasing the non-conformance of the site.
He stated Staff attempted to achieve the highest possible compliance based on the condition of
each site. He noted the location of the site within the Class II Entryway Corridor Overlay
District and was really the last private parcel within the City of Bozeman on that side of East
Main Street. He stated the building had been there since 1978 and predated much of the modern
zoning program. He noted the site was an irregular shape with a slope along the back; there were
Page 4 of 7
Design Review Board Minutes—December 14,2011
site constraints they were trying to work with. He stated there were constraints with regard to the
access off of Main Street. He stated the different types of uses would be provided with more
space, there would be landscaping, sidewalks, and other significant improvements. He stated
Staff had suggested pedestrian connections and the installation of a boulevard and sidewalk; they
had worked through many of the issues and the Fire Department was supportive of the one way
circulation through the site. He stated in general Staff was supportive of the site and the plans
for expansion. He stated Staff had requested relocation of two parking spaces that were not
needed and had suggested the inclusion of buffering and landscape areas as well. He stated that
with the location of the existing building, the proposed design was generally in conformance
with the design guidelines. He stated there was a sewer line that pre-empted any design moving
the front of the building forward. He added the current structure would be cleaned up and would
tie into the new construction. He stated he did not think this type of development would detour
people from going to that side of town but would instead make an existing use more aesthetically
pleasing while maintaining the character of the use.
Mr. Michels stated the business had been there for a long time and has very minimal amenities.
He stated the existing building definitely needs a facelift and the owner would like to downplay
the auto sales aspect while encouraging the auto repair use on the site. He stated they would
conform with as many of the Entryway Corridor Design Guidelines as they could and were
progressing well to that end. He stated the existing building was nonconforming as it encroached
into the required setback.
Mr. Hufstetler asked if the DRB would review the formal submittal. Planner Krueger responded
the criteria for DRB review had changed and the project would not be required to be reviewed by
the Board, but Staff or the applicant could request DRB review. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the
structure would be seen from the I-90 Corridor. Planner Krueger responded that the majority of
people scanning around would not be significantly affected by the proposed scale viewing it
from the freeway. Mr. Hufstetler asked if any site improvements had been triggered on East
Main Street. Planner Krueger responded the closest example of site improvements on that side
of town was the Locati Building, but it had been constructed under different circumstances. He
added there had been discussions of doing a subarea plan for that side of town which had come
up again when a developer had purchased the old KO's Club and was attempting to purchase the
Continental Motor Inn site. Mr. Hufstetler asked if there would be signage located anywhere
other than the front elevations. Mr. Michels stated they had not pushed anything regarding
signage, but they had considered a non-illuminated, overhead metal sign utilizing sun to display
the signage on the building. Mr. Hufstetler asked if they would be allowed only one freestanding
sign. Planner Krueger responded Mr. Hufstetler was correct and only one freestanding sign
would be allowed on the site.
Ms. Huyette stated the site was a transition area from the wetland property next door to the
downtown area and asked if the landscaping would be more traditional or more responsive to the
wetland area. Mr. Michels responded that the vegetation had flourished in the wetlands to the
point where it eclipses part of the east end of site which would proffer good potential for
Page 5 of 7
Design Review Board Minutes—December 14,2011
screening in that location. He stated he thought they could easily get vegetation to grow toward
the residential development adjacent to the site and provide screening while transitioning to a
rhythm more in keeping with the landscaping along Main Street that would screen the parking
and provide more of a traditional boulevard.
Vice Chairperson Rea thanked the applicant and owner for bringing the proposal to the DRB
even though they may not have had to do so. Planner Krueger responded that he had
recommended and encouraged the review due to the nature of the project. Vice Chairperson Rea
asked if anyone had a photo of the existing site. Mr. Michels directed the DRB to a black and
white photo of the site.
Chairperson Pentecost asked where the dead vehicle storage would be located. Mr. Wild
responded it would vary depending on the job but he would prefer to tuck them away in the
northwest corner. Mr. Michels stated there was a natural spot that was screened with wooden
fencing that would be modified to vegetative screening and fence. Mr. Wild added that each tech
would have two or three stalls to work with so could place vehicles inside until such a time as the
vehicle could be repaired.
Chairperson Pentecost opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the
public comment period was closed.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he thought the site really worked well though there would be an instinctive
urge to construct a gold plated building in that location. He stated it was a really difficult site
with a couple of spots that looked tight according to the proposed plan. He encouraged
appropriate landscaping be instituted on the facades of the buildings and something on the crest
of the hill would be a nice element, especially from I-90. He stated it would also be good to pay
attention to the pedestrian connections on the site but he did not think there was really a need to
establish a specific rhythm of urban trees as the surroundings would not maintain the pattern. He
suggested a more rural ambience for the treatment of the front of the site.
Ms. Huyette stated these were the kind of projects she got excited about as it more of an organic
evolution to the site. She stated it would be a transition point and was a unique parcel, but
overdoing it would not be the way to go. She suggested adding character to the area without
using a strict pattern or repetition. She stated she was concerned when edges started being
greened up and suggested carefully investigating how the lot lines were laid out with regard to
the existing vegetation. She stated she was supportive of the architecture as proposed and noted
she thought it would look really nice though there were some tight spots on the site. Mr. Michels
responded the tight spot was really twenty feet wide which was pushing the width for two way
traffic so they had instituted single vehicle circulation.
Vice Chairperson Rea stated he was really glad they had come in for Informal review. He stated
he was thrilled that there was a local anchor to East Main Street and that the owner was
remaining there. He stated he was glad it would not be a new, gold plated Midas as the proposed
architecture would speak more to the community. He encouraged the use of neon on the signage
Page 6 of 7
Design Review Board Minutes—December 14,2011
for gentle lighting and shadow boxing. He stated he agreed with Staff regarding the sidewalk
and he would love to see the sidewalks tied in. He stated he thought the use of coordinated street
furnishings would be unnecessary. He stated that in reference to the relocation of parking, he
would prefer to see 24 and 25 removed to increase the landscaping opportunity on the southwest
corner of the site. He stated he was supportive of bicycle parking with an opportunity for unique
parking facilities. He stated he liked the simple approach to the design and was supportive of
cleaning up the existing building though he was uncertain about the gables over the loading bays;
the sleek lines could be enhanced and supported by the new construction. He encouraged a less
generic and more unique design that didn't attempt to bend to what exists. He stated he thought
the site was slightly more industrial. Mr. Michels responded the gables would be functional for
weather protection. Vice Chairperson Rea stated he liked the existing window patterns and was
very excited about the proposal. He asked if day lighting or other sustainability features had
been investigated as he thought there would be opportunities to integrate those features. He
stated the detailing would be critical and he encouraged big, broad brushstrokes with a liberal
interpretation of the UDO's color guidelines. Mr. Michels responded the whole idea was to
break up the large mass using change of articulation and colors.
Chairperson Pentecost stated he concurred with previous DRB comments. He stated the east,
north, and west elevations had great detailing but his concern was the band around the bottom of
the building; he suggested the banding could be brought around to the existing building but only
in pieces to isolate the gables and doors and tie the old structure into the new construction. He
asked if the three front doors would be replaced. Mr. Wild responded the doors were fairly new
and would be re-used. He stated he agreed with Mr. Rea regarding the color schemes that they
should use for the building. Mr. Michels stated he loved the patina but Mr. Wild was not
particularly fond of rust; they did not want something with a lot of reflection or shine.
ITEM 5. PUBLIC COMMENT (15—20 minutes)
{Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this
agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Noella, a member of the public and student in Bozeman stated she thought the proposed Auto
Stop plan sounded great.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 7:24 p.m.
Michael Pentecost, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board
Page 7 of 7
Design Review Board Minutes—December 14,2011