Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-1995 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1995 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN 3:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Cliff Chisholm Roger Cruwys Kim Walker Walt Willett Paul Gleye Andy Epple, ex officio member, non-voting STAFF PRESENT Dean Patterson Derek Strahn Carol Schott VISITORS PRESENT David Wallin Linda Bell Jerry Gaston Tom Huber Tom Ferris Terry Larson Keith Swensen Chairperson Andy Epple called the meeting to order at 3:40 P.M. A. PROJECT REVIEWS 1. Bozeman Ford MiSP/COA #Z-95136 - (Patterson) 1804 W. Babcock - A Minor Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness Application for construction of a 54' X 18' auto storage building, increased paving, and related site improvements. Planner Dean Patterson reviewed the project. He summarized the conditions changed by DRC. Staff approves the plan subject to original and changed conditions. He reminded DRB members that the DRB is the final decision maker for this project. The Applicant may appeal to the City Commission by Friday with written reasons submitted by Tuesday of next week. Mr. Willett led the discussion stating that he disapproved of a slatted chain link fence. Planner Patterson explained that the fence would be screened by a hedge. Much discussion followed. The consensus was that a slatted fence was inappropriate. Mr. Wallin stated that the fencing and lighting were needed for security reasons. The discussion that followed pertained to where the back of the storage building, hedge, and fence should be located. Planner Patterson stated that the storage building couldn't be 1 set into the ditch maintenance setback requirements. Mr. Cruwys suggested attaching the fence to the rear of the storage building and extending it to the 6' height limit of the code to prevent thieves from hiding between the fence and building and readily climbing the fence. He also stated that the back of a building would be more attractive to neighbors than the weed, trash filled dead space between the building and the fence. Lighting was next discussed. Mr. Gaston summarized the discussion-that the fence be attached to the rear of the building and the lights attached to the front of the building. Mr. Cruwys added to remove the slats from the chain link fence. Mr. Chisholm stated that the luminaries would need to be approved by the Planning Office. Chairperson Epple summarized the discussion as eliminate the slats in the fence, illuminate the front of the building, landscape the back fence, and eliminate the lights behind the building. Mr. Gaston discussed leaving the asphalt and moving the fence to the setback. Chairman Epple stated that the intent of the code is to have wood chips, decorative rock, or some other landscaping materials used for landscaping, not asphalt or concrete. Mr. Gleye stated that the DRB realizes that the city has closed in around him. Discussion ensued about sidewalks being put in this new urban area. Chairperson Epple stated that the Engineering Department hasn't done the workup. Mr. Cruwys asked if the DRC accepted the asphalt, does this Board have the authority to change it. Chairperson Epple stated yes, because condition #Istill states that the asphalt shall be removed. After Mr. Gaston queried about which entity, DRC or DRB, had jurisdiction over the asphalt, the ensuing discussion brought out that they both had jurisdiction and that the DRB could add conditions to the DRC conditions. Discussion followed about how to leave the asphalt and meet the code requirements. Referring to condition #8, Mr. Cruwys asked what the Applicant was proposing to paint. Planner Patterson stated that Staff was referring to having accenting colors on the trim and doors to compliment the rest of the building, rather than have it all one color. Mr. Gleye stated that he thought that since the building is in the back of the lot, it was a minor building and not really visible from the street. He suggested that a "real" building would be more aesthetic. Mr. Gaston asked if they would have to go through the whole process again if they decided to build a larger building. Ms. Walker stated no, just the building would need to be approved. Mr. Gleye moved, Mr. Willett seconded, that the project be approved with the conditions of the Staff excluding condition #7 and the added conditions (1) eliminating the slats from the chain link fence, (2) attach the fence to the rear of the building, (3) eliminate the pole lighting at the rear of the property in favor of building lights on the north side of the proposed storage building, and (4) allow landscaping/berming over the asphalt. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Gaston inquired if they could install a chain link fence without slats, then a wooden fence, then do landscaping inside the whole. Mr. Cruwys stated that he could accept a wood fence, landscaping, then the chain link fence. 2