Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-14-1995 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1995 Members Present: Mara-Gai Katz Roger Cruwys John DeHaas Maire O'Neill Cliff Chisholm Kim Walker Staff Present: Therese Berger Patrick Morris Derek Strahn Debbie Arkell Dave Skelton Dale Beland Visitors Present: Andrew DiSanti Fred Weiner Gerry Gaston Dave Penwell Lowell Springer Doug Daniels Doug Rand Dave Penwell Joe Frost Al Knauber Carol Deitrich Lavina Chadbourne Don Hannah Bob Lee Bonnie Sank Carl Solvie Informal Review 1 . Germeroth Sign Planner Morris briefly reviewed the project and noted the location of the sign and existing business . He explained that the variance has been approved and one of the conditions of approval is to go through the COA process . He indicated that the sign proposed will meet the Zoning Code. Cliff Chisholm confirmed with Planner Morris that the approved variance permits a freestanding sign in an R-S district where it is normally not allowed under code. Cliff Chisholm inquired about the materials for the rectangular area of the primary proposal . Planner Morris explained that rectanglar portion of the primary proposal would be dryvitt or stucco with no lettering other than what is shown. Cliff Chisholm questioned wheterh stucco would be a good material for a sign. Planner Morris clarified that the actual sign portion would be metal with the stucco or dryvitt material surrounding the sign. Cliff Chisholm remarked that he doesn' t feel the extra sign area is necessary if there will be no lettering. He suggested that the border of the sign be reduced. Maire O'Neill asked Jack Germeroth which of the two proposals he is considering. Planner Morris explained that the applicant was hoping for some direction from DRB. Maire O'Neill suggested that landscaping underneath the sign might be more significant that the additional sign materials . John DeHaas questioned how the secondary sign proposal would be built . Kim Walker remarked that she feels it inappropriate for the applicant to have the Board pick which sign he should develop. She commented that the applicant should choose a design and submit quality drawings and colors . Both John DeHaas and Roger Cruwys agreed. Cliff Chisholm added that he hopes the actual submittal will reveal more in terms of color. John DeHaas suggested that the simplest and most economical sign be submitted. Kim Walker remarked that either proposal could be developed with adequate information and drawings . 2 . American Federal Savings Sculpture Derek Strahn reviewed the recommended guidelines for accepting donated artwork as approved by City Commission. He indicated that American Federal Savings has indicated an interest in the subject piece. John DeHaas remarked that he likes the sculpture and the site; however, the actual location is not noted on the site plan. Derek Strahn remarked that the actual site placement would be determined in a contract with the City and the donor. Cliff Chisholm commented that he thinks it would be appropriate for the Beautification Advisory Board and the City to work out the more specific details of the sculpture placement . Kim Walker agreed. Derek Strahn asked the Board if there is a preference in regards to the location of the sculpture on the site. Both Maire O'Neill and Cliff Chisholm agreed that the overall presentation of the sculpture would benefit by being placed in a landscaped area. Maire O'Neill remarkeding that visibility also be taken into consideration. Derek Strahn asked if the Board would want to review a site plan once an actual location has been chosen. Maire O'Neill responded that she thinks it is fair that the sculpture projects be brought before the DRB; however, if the Beautification Advisory Board wants real directives on its actual placement, an adequate site plan would need to be provided. Cliff Chisholm added that the Board would welcome such proposals if the Beautification Advisory Board and City Commission desire direction. Consent Agenda 1. zimorino COA Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by Kim Walker, that the project be approved with staff conditions . The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present . 2 . Montana Kids Day Care Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by Kim Walker, that the project be approved with staff conditions. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 3 . Disanti COA Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by Kim Walker, that the project be approved with staff conditions . The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. Project Review 1. Owenhouse COA Cliff Chisholm remarked that he feels the existing canopy on the subject structure is more appropriate than what is proposed. He indicated that he would like to encourage the applicant to repair the exisitng canapy as it is . John DeHaas agreed. John DeHaas commented that he feels the proposal would destroy the overall character of the building. Planner Skelton explained that the existing canopy leaks subtantially and accumulates snow. He noted that the recommendations of staff and the Historical Preservation Officer are not consistent with what Cliff Chisholm suggested. Cliff Chsiholm responded that it is hard to believe that it wouldn' t be cheaper to repair the existing canapy. Planner Skelton suggested that with the addition of some sort of membrane, gutters, or slope to direct the runoff, the existing canopy could be repaired adequately. Kim Walker agreed that the existing canopy of the structure should be repaired. Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by John DeHaas, to deny the proposal . Andrew Disanti explained that the owner feels that the proposal would enhance the building. He noted that a portion of the canopy was removed by a truck last summer and the changes would eliminate the leakage problem. He pointed out adjacent structures which utilize shake in the Main Street Historic District. Planner Skelton explained the appeal deadline to the applicant. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 2 . Fred' s Mesquite Diner COA Planner Morris briefly reviewed the proposal and noted the deviation for the height clearance on the proposed sign. He explained that although the sign code requires 9 ' clearance, the Uniform Building Code allows a 7 ' clearance. Because the requested 8 ' clearance would not create a health and safety concern, Staff supports the proposal and deviation as an overall improvement to the site. Maire O'Neill asked for clarification of the location of the sign on the submitted elevation. Planner Morris pointed out that the sign would be located over the main numbered entrance shown on the east elevation. She confirmed with Planner Morris that the vertical height clearance is measured from the existing sidewalk and that the subject sign is the only sign proposed for the building. Planner Morris confirmed that this is the only sign proposed and noted that a condition of approval would be that the existing billboard sign be removed, a condition which the applicant is agreeable to. Roger Cruwys noted that tree species for the planter box are not noted in the submittal. He cautioned the applicant to consider an appropriate drainage system for the planter box as there is a potential for root rot and sidewalk damage if not properly installed and drained. Roger Cruwys asked that the concerns raised regarding tree species and planter box drainage be addressed and submitted for Staff review. John DeHaas suggested that the concrete under the planter box be chipped out and the paving abut the box to facilitate drainage and maintain visual aesthetics . Roger Cruwys voiced concern that the proposed brick pavers be treated such that they remain non-slippery in the likely event of food and beverage spillage. Maire O'Neill remarked that the south elevation plans are unclear in respect to whether the awning becomes part of the building. She continured that it is unclear where the addition and canopy end and where the existing building resumes, and suggested that the canopy be dropped a little below the parapet of the building. Cliff Chisholm added that if the canopy were dropped 1 foot it would look as if it is attached to the exterior wall of the building rather than like a mansard roof . He continued that while he doesn' t want to discourage the applicant from making improvements to the building, he agrees with Maire O'Neill that the continuation of the parapet with the canopy butting into the wall would look more appropriate. Cliff Chisholm commented that if any mesquite needs to be stored outside of the building, he would prefer that it be screened. Maire O'Neill praised the applicant for not attempting to cover the building with dryvitt. Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by Kim Walker, to approve the proposal subject to staff conditions #1 and #2 and additional conditions #345 subject to Staff approval as follows : 3) that the applicant provide for screening of any outdoor storage, 4) that the applicant submit plant species and planter box details to show that it has been designed to provide for drainage, and 5) that the canopy or its pitch be lowered so that approximately one foot of the parapet of the existing building be exposed above the canopy line all around. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 3 . Lucky Lip s Planner Skelton reviewed the proposal and noted that the primary new change is the relocation of the second structure. He noted that there would be no neon tube lighting along the ridges of the structure; just two neon tubes along the entire facia of both structures . He remarked that the only signage now proposed is a monument sign that would be 6 ' high from the crown of West Main, requiring a 20% variation to exceed the 5 ' maximum height allowed. Planner Skelton reminded the Board that they made an informal recommendation for approval of the variances concerning the front yard setback, the stream setback and parking in lieu of landscaping. He indicated that Staff would move forward with the original conditions of approval . Planner Skelton explained that the Board would need to make an informal recommendation on the variance for the sign height and a formal recommendation on the Conditional Use Permit. John DeHaas questioned the Staff recommendation for the elimination of the deck on the east side of the smaller structure. as he feels it would be an amenity. Planner Skelton explained that parking requirements would increase in an already congested area with the increase of floor space. John DeHaas remarked that he would be willing to forego one parking stall for the amenity of the deck. He commented that the deck would help the overall composition of the site and building design, as well as provide relief from the smokey atmosphere of the casino. Planner Skelton explained that the deck would require 2 or 3 more off-street parking spaces as there is no location for on- street parking. He continued that there are numerous complaints regarding lack of parking in the area and relaxing the parking standards would further the problem. Planner Skelton remarked that landscaping in lieu of parking can be done for up to 5 spaces . Cliff Chisholm remarked that the entryway guidelines encourage outdoor seating spaces . John DeHaas suggested a slight reduction in the footprint of the buildings to offset the parking. Maire O 'Neill suggested the deck could be smaller. Gerry Gaston commented that the owner isn' t particular about whether the deck remains; they just thought it would be more of an amenity to the City. Kim Walker remarked that the revisions seem to address all the concerns of the last discussion. Roger Cruwys agreed. Roger Cruwys voiced concern that the species of shrubbery for the front of the sign be chosen so that they will not cover part of the sign. He continued that he feels the colors and design of the sign is appropriate for the use. John DeHaas suggested that only a 10% variance for a 5-1/2 ' sign be granted so that a precedence is not set. Gerry Gaston agreed that the sign could be lowered 611 . Kim Walker moved, seconded by Roger Cruwys , to approve the proposal with a 10% variance or allowable sign height of 5-1/2 ' . The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. The Board was is agreement concerning an informal recommendation to allow for the front yard and water course setbacks to include the deck as part of the design amenities that substantiate the variances . 4 . Bridger Blacksmith Z-94108 Planner Arkell reviewed the proposal and noted the site location. She indicated that the site will not be served by city infrastructure as it is outside of the city limits . She reviewed the staff report and indicated that the applicant has reluctantly agreed to replace the colored siding with galvanized shingles and siding. Planner Arkell noted that the applicant has done some berming and landscaping on the site. Cliff Chisholm remarked that he didn' t recall a requirement coming from the Board in regard to the use of galvanized sideing. He felt the Board was looking for ways to integrate the front with the back of the building. Kim Walker agreed. Lowell Springer remarked that they originally intended to use masonite siding, then switched to vertically grooved siding at the various Boards ' suggestions . He indicated that the applicant would prefer the use of standard vertical metal siding. Cliff Chisholm questioned the proposed colors . Planner Arkell remarked that the applicant relayed over the phone the color green for the roof and beigetone siding. Lowell Springer commented that historically, the front and back ends of falsefront buildings had no correlation. Kim Walker remarked that, considering the amount of residential development around the site, the galvanized building might appear to be a huge mirror. Cliff Chisholm remarked that false front buildings historically are only viewed from the front. John DeHaas inquired about the roofing materials . Lowell Springer remarked that they propose to use color-treated metal for the roof and sides . Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by John DeHaas, to recommend approval of the project per staff conditions #1 & #2 ; that the siding be prefinished metal as proposed by the applicant; that a color scheme in the lighter earthtones be submitted and approved by staff; and that the roof be metal and compatable with the siding. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. Planner Arkell noted the appeal deadline of noon by Friday. 5 . Sundance Concept Plan Z-9508 Planner Arkell reviewed the proposal and explained that the Planning Board and City Commission will also review the project in its conceptual form at the request of the applicant. She reviewed the PUD guidelines and explained that R-S zoning typically allows one dwelling unit per acre. Planner Arkell explained that DRB will review the development guidelines with the PUD submittal . Cliff Chisholm asked the developer what approach would be taken regarding the architectural guidelines . Bob Lee remarked that they will establish a range of themes, colors , rooflines , and landscaping for the homesites as well as the management of the open space areas , the treatment of the burrow pits . He indicated that they will address permitted uses and lighting for both the streets and structures . Kim Walker asked for specific details in regard to the architectural guidelines for the homes . Don Hannah indicated that they will encourage horizontal siding, roof pitch minimums of 7 : 12 , and variety in terms of texture and exterior. Roger Cruwys remarked that it would be desirable to get rid of some of the landlocked areas have some sort of direct access to the green areas . Don Hannah pointed out the trail systems . Maire O'Neill questioned the type of housing proposed for the small lots . Don Hannah responded that they are considering some combined garages . John DeHaas confirmed with Don Hannah that the average size of the affordable housing lots would be approximately 6000 square feet. The size of the other lots is 1/2 acre. Don Hannah remarked that the fence along the west side of the site would remain to discourage any pedestrian traffic coming onto the Haynes property. Maire O'Neill complimented the clustering of the houses on the lots and remarked that they define a more dense atmoshphere near the streets . Don Hannah commented that the yard setbacks throughout the PUD will be somewhat restrictive, such that they wish to restrict any building in the rear yards . Roger Cruwys remarked that the concept is off to a good start. He indicated he would like the applicant to give more consideration to the roads running through the PUD. He suggested more curves and meandering roads to minimize the lot and block appearance and to enhance the experience of driving through the property. Kim Walker confirmed with Bob Lee that the setback requirements for the smaller lots would be different from the larger lots . Maire O 'Neill commented that the idea of not allowing structures, including fences, in the rear yards of the large lots is exciting. Cliff Chisholm remarked that the more specific the guidelines, the better. He said he would like to see sketches, diagrams, lighting details , streetscape details , and the development of a pedestrian trail system. Planner Arkell explained that the applicant is proposing to install sidewalks on only one side of the streets . Don Hannah remarked that they would like to propose a bike trail on the other half of the residential streets . John DeHaas said that by installing sidewalks on only one side of the street, a burden is placed on selective property owners to maintain it. He continued, that in reality, pedestrians would use the bike trail . Kim Walker suggested the applicant take direction from the Walker PUD submittal for the development guidelines . 6 . Penwell COA Planner Beland reviewed the concerns expressed by the Board at the last meeting and noted new changes to the proposal, including an expanded drive access to accommodate the tree island, relocation of the water lines, minor changes in curbing details, and a shifting of the northernmost building to meet the required setback, He pointed out that the most substantial change is in the elevations . Planner Beland commented that there has been considerable discussion on the issue of the sewer capacity and remarked that the City Staff responsible for making that determination have indicated that there is no problem providing service to the project if it is approved. Planner Beland commented that he believes the Fire Marshall will require more than 12 ' of driveway clearance around the tree island to the site and recommended the Board consider a condition to that effect. He remarked that the issue of compatibility is not so much with comparison to the neighboring R-3 and R-4 districts , but with the intent of the Conservation District . Cliff Chisholm commented that he feels that the project consists of too much paving. He remarked that he doesn ' t know if it is wise to make a decision based on protection of a tree that may not survive here for many decades . Kim walker asked if it would make more sense to eliminate the tree. John DeHass agreed that there is too much paving into the building area. He remarked that although he does not object to the number of units, he feels the project needs some professional design help for the site development, landscaping and architecture. He continued that he feels that the project needs more than just the desire to build two duplexes and that the proposal seems to be destroying a potentially beautiful site. Cliff Chisholm remarked that he understands that the Fire Department has concerns that the hammerhead turnaround be maintained. Planner Beland commented that although the Fire Marshall requires a turnaround, it does not necessarily have to be where it is proposed. He suggested that the reason for the proposed hammerhead location is that it falls on an easement and is convenient. Dave Penwell remarked that the changes made have the approval of the South East Bozeman Neighborhood Association. Cliff Chisholm noted that the subject letter from Jeff Downhour identifies concerns on the second page. Mara-Gai Katz added that the alignment and placement of the buildings are still concerns and that the subject letter is not indicative of complete support for the project . Planner Beland reviewed the concerns noted in Mr. Downhour's letter, and indicated that Staff has determined that the project conforms to code development standards and that the sewer capacity concern has been resolved. Planner Beland commented that construction is allowed to the edge of the 30 ' easement. He remarked that he feels there can be a reduction of asphalt at the entrance and the addition of a park area on the north side of the drive. Maire O 'Neill remarked that the porch projection from the large mass of building should be expanded to create more of a buffer zone between the people inside and the parking outside. She voiced concern regarding the handling of the inverted "T" of trim on the second stories of the structures and suggested that it be eliminated. She continued that although the window alignment and proportions of the buildings have been improved, it is unclear why the upper windows are shown with horizontal dividers and the lower with vertical dividers . She verified with a representative from Vidmar Construction that the windows would be aluminum clad with cedar trim on the interiors . Maire O 'Neill noted that in the last meeting, there was substantial discussion on the orientation of the building. She voiced concern that the issue has not been adequately addressed. Dave Penwell responded that he spent two hours with Roger Cruwys trying to reorient the buildings and provide for additional landscaping. He said they tried to separate and rotate the buildings , and that Roger Cruwys recognized at the end of the meeting that the buildings could only be orientated as proposed. Mr. Penwell continued that most of the elevation changes were worked out with Jeff Downhour. He noted that the water line was moved to the north side to address the southeastern neighbors ' concerns . Cliff Chisholm remarked that the applicant seems locked into a certain program and building design that has limited the possibilities with the type of building that has been decided upon. He continued that the Board should keep in mind that the site is in a protected neighborhood; albeit mixed at the edges . He indicated he is still concerned with the stark massing of the buildings with the large asphalt drive and parking lot between them. Cliff Chisholm said that he feels the proposal does not fit well in the location, although there are lots of other sites that would be appropriate for the proposed style of building. He continued that the applicant seems to have made some progress with the elevation changes, that the porch could be improved and that the site could still most likely accommodate multifamily dwellings if designed differently. Maire O 'Neill noted that the applicant hasn' t been able to show any flexibility concerning the footprints . Mara-Gai Katz added that she doesn' t believe the basic building plan has been looked at, that the applicant seems to only have looked at how to move the same two blocks around rather than explore changing the blocks . Dave Penwell contended that the Board should consider the market concept in their deliberations . He indicated that he is limited by the parameters of providing 1500 square foot dwelling units with double car garages on quality sites and that no other concept will meet these market concept parameters . He contended that if the Board turns the project down, they are not offering solutions , but saying only that they don' t like it. Maire O'Neill suggested that perhaps the applicant has a market concept that simply cannot be applied to the subject site. She remarked that it cannot be the Board' s role to design a project. Mara-Gai Katz added it is also not the Board' s role to accommodate the site. Cliff Chisholm explained that because the proposal is in the Conservation District, the Board' s judgements are guided by the Secretary of Interior Standards rather than a like or dislike of the project. He said that approval or denial boils down to the elements of the project that remain incompatible with the neighborhood. He continued that the Board is appointed to interpret the guidelines that protect the neighborhood. Dave Penwell commented that he would like to move forward with the project and to reduce the amount of asphalt. He explained that he has spent considerable time and resources trying to accommodate the review process with little real guidance from the Board. Maire O 'Neill moved, seconded by Cliff Chisholm, to deny the project as presented based on major concerns with the overall building massing, the building footprints, and the excess paving; in concert with the other issues discussed by the Board. The motion carried with a 4 -1 vote; those voting in favor being Maire O 'Neill, Cliff Chisholm, Mara-Gai Katz, and John DeHaas; those voting against, Kim Walker.