Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-12 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem Rea called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:35 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 Cristina Coddington Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Bill Rea, Vice Chairperson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mark Hufstetler Lori Garden Walter Banziger Visitors Present Jim Ullman Jackie Coffin ITEM 2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2012 MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Ms. Coddington seconded, to approve the minutes of August 22, 2012 as presented. The motion carried 3-0 with Ms. Garden abstaining. ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW 1. Steak & Shake Informal #I-12023 (Krueger) 3240 Technology Boulevard West * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a new restaurant with a drive-thru, associated parking, and related site improvements. Jim Ullman joined the DRB. He noted the proposal was for a specialty burger, steak, and shake place that also specialized in chili. He noted it would be a 3,500 sq. ft. building and they were proposing a drive-thru. He stated they had met with Staff and listened to their comments; the orientation of the building had been modified to give it more of a presence to the west instead of the south as it had originally been planned. He apologized that the franchisee could not be available for the meeting and neither could the property owner. He noted he had met with Planner Krueger regarding modifications to the proposed franchise architecture and had agreed that modifications should be made. He noted the black and white stripes proposed for the façade had been eliminated and the bow tie shape proposed for the front had been modified to be squarer. He noted the awning had been carried around to three of the four sides where it had not been included previously. He noted they had added some of the Bozeman Gateway typical light fixtures to the building and had eliminated the brushed window framing and replaced it with a dark bronze color framing. Mr. Banziger joined the DRB. Mr. Ullman stated he was available for any questions. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Memo noting the project was within the Bozeman Gateway PUD that had originally been approved with a condition that each project within the development be reviewed by the DRB. He stated that one of the first things that Staff did was to investigate the existing buildings in other locations and compare them to the one being proposed for Bozeman; he noted the first image that came up was the building that had originally been proposed. He noted there was specific language in the guidelines for Entryway Corridors as well as the design guidelines for Bozeman Gateway which both prohibited franchise architecture. He stated the site design itself was generally in compliance and was supportable as such; he emphasized that the discussion was primarily regarding the architectural design. He stated the site connected to the open space and would provide outdoor amenities in addition to providing pedestrian connection through the development. He stated the orientation provided adequate access and vehicular as well as pedestrian circulation and was in keeping with the zoning district. He noted the focus would be on the proposed franchise architecture and Staff disagreed with the applicant that they had gone away from franchise architecture; Staff’s position was that franchise was the sum total of the parts that when put together clearly identify the building as franchise and, in general, turned the building itself into a sign for the franchise. He noted the typical elements were characteristic within the proposal and came together to make a franchise design; how easily the building could be adapted for a new tenant was also often a factor. Planner Krueger stated he had mentioned after the last DRC meeting that Staff would not likely support the design as it appeared to be franchise architecture. He cited the Bozeman Gateway design guidelines and the aerial view and noted franchise establishments in that setting should not be identifiable and should be more integrated into the overall development. He noted Staff accepted franchise building elements if the rest of the building were integrated into the site more smoothly. He noted innovative new regional design traditions were preferred. He noted that the revision removed some of the elements that were key to a franchise, much of the building remained identifiable and clearly representative of the franchise and Staff was willing to work with the applicant. Mr. Hufstetler stated when he had reviewed the proposal he had reflected on a discussion of what constitutes signage. Planner Krueger responded they had taken the approach that if it was franchise element that was displayed in the signage, it would be considered signage; it was a matter of degree in a sense, but it was a moot point if the building itself was of franchise design and would basically be a building sized sign. He added the code read that something being displayed that was directly related to the use of the building would be considered signage as they were displaying a commercial message for what was inside the store. He noted the Safeway Building had graphics on the windows that concealed their mechanical equipment room that were not directly related to any of the activities within the store. Mr. Hufstetler stated it seemed to him that the only thing in keeping with the design guidelines that had been used on the updated proposal was the light fixtures and asked if there were any more elements that had been applied to the project to provide cohesiveness. Planner Krueger responded the proposed brick masonry was an acceptable material as were the solid awnings. He added the bronze storefront windows were also allowed and those were the three features he had noticed. Mr. Ullman added that the property owner really liked the proposed slope on the walls as it tied in with the east and west adjacent properties so that it would blend with the buildings that existing on the site; he wanted variety to make the site look inviting and incorporate different styles within the whole development. Ms. Coddington asked if the proposed red paneling was of metal construct. Mr. Ullman responded it would be metal and would be ceramic backed with a higher gloss look that would stand out better. Mr. Banziger clarified that the Staff’s concern was that the sum of all the parts was still too much franchise architecture proposed. Planner Krueger responded Mr. Banziger was correct. Mr. Banziger stated that more traditional materials could be used and asked if a nostalgic or historic franchise option had been investigated; like an old fifty’s diner rather than the current franchise. Planner Krueger responded the way the guidelines read was for new designs but it would be a possibility; Staff would always consider those options but would defer to the Bozeman Gateway design guidelines. He noted franchise guidelines were administered throughout the City. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea clarified the franchise architecture guidelines were also for the Entryway Corridors. Planner Krueger responded Chairperson Pro Tem Rea was correct. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea asked if there was any concern that a retail pad was being proposed to be used as a restaurant. Planner Krueger responded that Staff could review other uses that were allowed within the B-2 zoning district. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea asked that after Kohl’s went through review, had the design guidelines manual been updated. Planner Krueger responded Staff had required minor updates to the manual during that time but there was nothing on the current site that would require further updating. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea asked if the design standards had been modified. Planner Krueger responded they had not, but the pad sites were subject to review even if the proposed structure did not match the structure indicated in the guidelines. Planner Krueger noted that Entryway Corridors were looked upon as overlay zoning districts and provided additional enhancement. Mr. Hufstetler stated he would make comments in two broad areas; whether it was franchise architecture or not and the merits of the proposed architecture. He stated he concurred with Staff that the proposal was blatantly franchise architecture. He stated the proposed alterations did not change, in any meaningful way, the overall franchise architecture of the proposed structure. He stated that for the building to be transformed into something other than franchise architecture, there would need to be substantial changes; he suggested changing the bow tie feature and material/color palette. He stated a historic architecture organization he was affiliated with was automobile oriented and he thought the proposal was an effort to emulate that design though he did not think it had worked. He stated if the franchisee or developer wanted to take the diner concept and come up with something innovative, there were buildings that incorporated those elements. He stated the proposal was very generic and was not a successful example of the era they were emulating. He stated he thought it was a very strong franchise architecture example and thought it could use some inspiration it did not have. Ms. Coddington stated she agreed with Mr. Hufstetler and Staff that the proposal was franchise architecture. She stated she liked the red that had been proposed and suggested using more traditional materials. She suggested the adaptability of the building to a future use should also be considered. She stated she thought the amendments helped reduce the franchise architecture but it was not enough. She suggested the roof line could be modified to be more consistent with those around it. Ms. Garden stated she agreed with Mr. Hufstetler and Mr. Banziger that the old style restaurant might be nice and suggested use of materials that would stand out less. She stated the proposed football images would go better with an old diner style building. Mr. Banziger thanked the applicant for participating in the DRB review process as he thought it was very beneficial for Staff, the DRB, the community, and the applicant. He stated he agreed with Staff’s comments whole heartedly and even with the modifications, the sum of the parts still lent to strong franchise architecture. He suggested the applicant go back and look for the nostalgic feel from the older elements of those types of diners. He indicated the nostalgic diner feel would be unique for Bozeman and the franchise. He thanked the applicant and stated he thought they had a good opportunity for this project. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea stated he agreed with Staff and previous DRC comments. He stated the proposal stayed in keeping with the design guidelines better than others they had reviewed. He stated he thought it was an appropriate location for a drive thru. He stated he had a hard time telling which were the before and which were the after renderings; the modifications had not done well enough in removing the franchise architecture. He stated agreed with Ms. Coddington and he liked the proposed red as well; he had also liked it on the ACE Hardware across the street. He asked Mr. Hufstetler what the best practices was for replicating a more historic look. Mr. Hufstetler responded he did not think it was dishonest and it had become more popular to attempt to replicate those types of structures to invoke the era and still be compatible with the site; he added the craftsman design theme of the Bozeman Gateway was already taken from earlier architecture. He added a replica of something like that could become a landmark and seemed to match their corporate image. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea thanked Mr. Hufstetler for his input and suggested changing the building massing might be an option and include leasable space on the second or third floor. He noted the design manual and the proposal were as different as night and day and he had been surprised by the inclusion of franchise architecture. He stated he was supportive of Staff’s recommendations and noted the franchise issue was a hot one with both the DRB and the City Commission and suggested if the applicant looked more carefully at the design manual they would be more successful. He noted the sense of place was very important to the community. He suggested he wished the mural were replaced with a view of what was going on inside though he did not know if the City would view that as additional signage. Mr. Hufstetler added that he agreed with Chairperson Pro Tem Rea as the mural was a bit incongruous; he noted they could be more creative and he thought the structure cried out for some crazy neon tubing or something less generic. Mr. Ullman asked if they got rid of the proposed signage and stuck DQ on there, it would not be franchise any longer. Mr. Hufstetler responded he thought it would still be franchise architecture and would still be representative of such; it was a building intended to be replicated instead of with respect to the town. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea added that getting elevations labeled “front”, “rear”, “left”, and “right” was an instant red flag as it was not designed with regard to adjacent site to the north, south, east, and west. He asked if neon would be acceptable. Planner Krueger responded that neon would be allowable but would need to be incorporated into the signage instead of being run around the building; neon lighting features were generally considered a building element that is not encouraged. He noted he had been speaking with the Dairy Queen Corporation and the white barn with the red roof was their previous franchise standard; their proposal had applied the elements from the current franchise standard to the barn shaped structure that existed. Mr. Ullman responded that they had attempted to explain the restrictions in Bozeman and the franchise had not been willing to diminish the franchise impression. He thanked the DRB for their comments and noted it would help him to explain to the restaurant owners. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea stated the structure would be blasted with heat with the proposed windows on the west elevation and suggested heat mitigation could also be incorporated. ITEM 4. 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.} No items were forthcoming. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m. Bill Rea, Chairperson Pro Tem City of Bozeman Design Review Board