Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-1995 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995 Members Present: Cliff Chisholm Ed McCrone Roger Cruwys Paul Gleye Andy Epple Staff Present: Dean Patterson, Associate Planner/Urban Designer Derek Strahn, Historic Preservation Officer Therese Berger, Recording Secretary Visitors Present: Ken Thorsen Robert Dougherty Walley Roberts Joseph Rindone Parker Leach A. CONTINUED PROJECT REVIEW 1. Thorsen MiSP/COA #Z-95126 617 East Lamme - A Minor Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness Application for the construction of a 20' x 32' garage/workshop with a one bedroom apartment. Planner Dean Patterson reviewed the project and previous concerns from the DRB concerning suggested facade changes. He explained that the alley access issue is in the process of resolution, as the property owners have agreed to jointly deed the alley right-of- way to the City. Robert Dougherty, applicant's architect, noted the DRB's previous recommendations: to include revisions to copy the north elevation to the south, the use of a single siding material, and the simplification of the rear yard railing. He indicated a willingness to bring revised drawings before the Board at the next meeting. Paul Gleye commented that since the elevations are the issue before the Board, it is important for the drawings to reflect the actual proposed design. Mr. Dougherty recalled that the main concerns of the Board were the number of materials and the complexity of the south elevation. He emphasized that the changes will be minor. Mr. Gleye commented that Design Review Board - November 14, 1995 1 simplification could make the structure either handsome or ugly. Mr. Dougherty commented that although the project was discussed extensively, some of the Board Members comments were contradictory. Cliff Chisholm commented that the applicant seems to have a clear understanding of how he'd like the project designed. Robert Dougherty questioned whether the Board would be interested in seeing a few options, as several could work well. He noted that his client prefers the false front to the gable design. Roger Cruwys commented that he feels there is room for personal expression, and voiced concern whether it is the Board's purview to choose an elevation option. He also remarked that too many details at the front elevation may detract from it. MOTION - Paul Gleye moved, seconded by Roger Cruwys, to table the project until the applicant provides revised drawings for a complete submittal. Robert Dougherty commented that the intent of providing a few options for the redesign would merely be to expedite approval of the project. Ed McCrone questioned the visibility of the north elevation (the false front). Planner Patterson commented that the structure would be visible from the alley and above the bushes north of the lot. Rob Dougherty added that views of the building will be minimal from all four surrounding streets: Wallace, Lamme, Davis and Plum. The motion carried with a 4-0 vote of the members present. B. PROJECT REVIEWS 1. Fullerton Office Building MiSP/COA #Z-95145 15 West Olive A Minor Site Plan & Certificate of Appropriateness to allow signage, landscaping, and site improvements. Planner Dean Patterson requested, on behalf of the applicant, that the project be tabled until Tuesday, November 28, 1995. The consensus of the Board was to honor this request. 2. Rindone Office Building COA #Z-95146 1006 West Main Street - A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow interior renovations and facade changes to an existing building. Planner Dean Patterson reviewed Staff Report and indicated that the applicant has Design Review Board - November 14, 1995 2 expressed a desire to replace some of the east and north side windows with synthetic panels rather than wall material. He noted that the applicant and owner have decided to submit a master signage plan under a separate application, and that the Planning Office has received no written or verbal comment for or against the project. Cliff Chisholm asked for clarification in regards to the windows. Walley Roberts, architect, displayed revised elevations and discussed interior space uses in relation to the windows proposed to be replaced with the exterior insulation finish system. He passed around a sample of the material, and indicated that there would be no window changes to the south elevation. The addition of the entry on the south will feature new masonry piers, utilizing matching brick from an interior masonry wall, to replicate an existing feature of the building. Ed McCrone confirmed with Mr. Roberts that the exterior panels can be easily installed and changed. He commented that the site includes a reasonable amount of landscaping. Cliff Chisholm questioned the panel color proposed. Walley Roberts responded that the applicant prefers to minimize the impact by sticking with a darker color. Ed McCrone verified with Mr. Roberts that the panels have no "R-value". A discussion ensued regarding the age of the building. Joseph Rindone indicated that the original structure was built in 1965, and the addition was added in 1990. Paul Gleye commented that the compatibility of the upper and lower halves of the building make the decision regarding the panel color important. MOTION - Paul Gleye moved, seconded by Cliff Chisholm to approve Zoning Application #Z-95146 with the conditions outlined by staff, and the additional condition that any panel material used to replace glass windows shall be of a dark tone which is compatible with the existing finish colors of the building and shal be reviewed and approved by planning staff. 3. Frontier Family Restaurant Sign COA #Z-95146 302 North 7th Avenue - A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the retention of existing signage. Historic Preservation Officer Derek Strahn reviewed signage on the site and noted the receipt of an additional letter in support of existing signage from the owners of Kentucky Fried Chicken. He corrected items 1 and 2 of the total permitted signage listed on page 2 of the Staff Report to 132 and 42 square feet respectively. He commented that the hand-carved freestanding sign seems more fitting than the wall-mounted signage. Design Review Board - November 14, 1995 3 Planning Director Epple suggested to the Board that there may be some trade-off in terms of what signage would be allowed in an attempt to more closely meet the sign code restrictions. Parker Leech, applicant, commented that he feels the freestanding sign does have the flavor of a particular period in relation to Criteria C of Section 18.65, Bozeman Zoning Ordinance. The hand-carved sign, he said, is unique to the 7 restaurant chain and was installed in 1985 when extensive remodeling was done to create the frontier look. He said that all of the signs inside the restaurant are hand-carved. Mr. Leech stated that business would probably not suffer to loose the wall-mounted signage on the Beall Street (south) elevation, as during the summer it isn't visible through the apple trees. He mentioned previous discussions with staff concerning the possibility of a monument signage, and indicated his willingness to work with the City to find a workable solution. Derek Strahn commented that although the applicant would be able to remove the poles of the freestanding sign, the signage portion is larger than what is allowed for a low profile monument sign. Because the sign is hand-carved and unique to the chain, he explained, the applicant is trying to find a way to use it. Cliff Chisholm commented that although the freestanding sign is not what is typically defined as historic (dating at least 50 years), it does represent a specific period. He said that the site captures the 1970's frontier nostalgia, when saw-carved and barn wood were often used to bring back the old west character. He added that we are sometimes selective in regards to what historic periods we recognize. Roger Cruwys commented that the historic character shouldn't be tied to any specific period. He questioned how allowable signage is calculated. Planning Director Epple explained sign allowances for principle versus secondary frontages, and clarified that the secondary frontage allowance can only be used for that frontage. Roger Cruwys commented that he doesn't think a monument sign would be appropriate for the site. He said that he feels the freestanding sign is one of the nicer signs on North 7th and that it is in keeping with the architecture of the building. He questioned the setback in relation to the freestanding sign. Planning Director Epple observed that the west corner of the freestanding sign seems to hang slightly over the sidewalk, but not in the right-of-way. He explained that the 15' setback is supposed to be from the pedestrian easement, and suggested that the freestanding sign could possibly be moved 6-8 feet to the east as well as lowered to become more in conformance with the sign code. Mr. Epple explained that the sign code allows the square Design Review Board - November 14, 1995 4 footage of freestanding signs to increase the further they are set back. Mr. Epple commented that the sign code assumes that every sign is going to be ugly and ensures that, with the worse case scenario sign, the streetscape will not be destroyed. Ed McCrone commented that the freestanding sign is fairly unobtrusive compared to some of the other signs along North 7th Avenue. He said he hopes there is a way to use the sign. Mr. McCrone questioned consistency in terms of dealing with special sign exceptions to the code. Planning Director Epple said that the Zoning Ordinance requires all signage to meet current standards, and noted that the spirit of the sign code is to allow less obtrusive signs. He said that if the wall-mounted signage on North 7th (west) elevation was eliminated, the overall signage would be closer to conformance. Ed McCrone voiced concern that a tree might be sacrificed to lower and move back the sign. Derek Strahn confirmed with Mr. Leech that he would be willing to remove the wall- mounted signage from the south and west elevations. He suggested lowering the pole sign by 3' to 13', which is the allowable height for freestanding sign that is set back 15' from the property line. This way, only the setback deviation would be required. Paul Gleye voiced concern that, it this instance, the code seems obstructionist to good design and that the letter of the code goes against the intent of the code. He commented that the applicant has modest street frontage with good landscaping, and feels there is a basis for dealing with the application in a creative way. Mr. Gleye stated that the issue of the setback is not so important because the sign is actually approximately 30' from the traffic lane. He said that while he is not sure that the North 7th wall-mounted sign gets any visibility, site line studies might indicate that a lower freestanding sign would be more visible. The north facing sign, he continued, seems important, and suggested a compromise by allowing the most effective signage to remain. Cliff Chisholm said that because the freestanding sign is so close to the sidewalk, lowering it may make it too close to pedestrian movements. In which case, he suggested the sign be set back further from the sidewalk. Planning Director Epple indicated that the Uniform Building Code requires at least 8' clearance from a public right-of-way. He added that one of the complaints about monument signs is that they can be subject to vandalism. Paul Gleye remarked that a monument sign would be ineffective. MOTION - Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by Paul Gleye, to recommend approval Design Review Board - November 14, 1995 5 of Zoning Application #Z-95143 with the following conditions: 1) That the height of the freestanding sign be lowered to a maximum height of 13', and 2) That the wall-mounted signage be removed from the North 7th Avenue (west) and Beall Street (south) elevations. The conditions would limit deviations in regard to the freestanding sign to the setback and allowable square footage. The basis for this recommendation includes satisfactorily meeting the review criteria (Section 18.65, A-D), the unique character of the sign in relation to the building, and the existing site conditions. Roger Cruwys commented that the distance between the two portions of the freestanding sign should remain. Board Members agreed. The motion carried with a 4-0 vote of members present. Mr. Leech offered to submit a revised drawing to the Planning Office. A final decision regarding the application will be made by the City Commission on Monday, December 18, 1995. Design Review Board - November 14, 1995 6