Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-13-1999 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY,APRIL 13, 1999 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Kim Walker called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. and introduced and welcomed the three new members. She directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Kim Walker (None) Therese Berger Jeff Fox Mara-Gai Katz Derek Strahn Bonnie Hash Bill Hanson Andrew Epple Caren Roberty Ed McCrone Carol Schott Les Comer Henry Sorenson Ellen Murray Joanne Noel Charles Fox Dick Pohl Frank J. Schledorn Daniel Glenn Keith Belden Marcia Youngman Jerry Taylor Ryan Smith Chairperson Walker commented that the amendment to the Bylaws under the election of officers states that there will be a roll call vote with a short statement as to the reason for the vote. She noted she will begin asking for a roll call vote with a short summary beginning today. Mr. McCrone moved to approve the change to the Bylaws for the election of officers every January. The motion was seconded by Ms. Katz and carried 5-0. Chairperson Walker noted the By-Laws state that a new member will attend two meetings before he/she is allowed to speak or vote on a project. ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 1999 Chairperson Walker asked for corrections to the minutes for March 23, 1999. She noted that Walt Willett wasn't at the last meeting, it was Mr. Sorenson who made the comment in the first paragraph. Chairperson Walker moved, Mr. McCrone seconded,to approve the minutes as amended. Design Review Board Minutes-April 13,1999 1 ITEM 3. REGULAR AGENDA A. Aspen Meadows Apartments MaSP/COA#Z-9921 - (Berger) 1062 Oak Street - A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of twelve 4-plex apartment buildings and related site improvements. Jeff Fox joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Therese Berger reviewed the Staff report and discussed the three (3) conditions of approval. She noted the distribution of a letter from Bonnie Hash in regard to possible concern regarding the wetlands and natural areas of the park. Mr. Sorenson asked about the requirements for sidewalks, to which Planner Berger noted that sidewalks aren't required on private drives. Discussion followed on the recommended cross walks (condition#1) and how they would be delineated. Chairperson Walker asked for further discussion on the suggested condition for the addition of foot bridges. Planner Berger noted the foot bridges (condition#2) would provide a connection between the dedicated public park and this development. In response to Chairperson Walker, Planner Berger noted the area referred to in the letter is not shown as wetlands on the maps in the office and it is not in a FEMA floodplain. Planning Director Epple noted there will not be encroachments into wetlands, the 35'stream setback, or the FEMA-designated flood plain. In response to Mr. Hanson, Planner Berger noted the proposed locations of the dumpsters and expanded on the dumpster requirements. Mr. Fox noted he had changed the location of the sidewalks after he visited with Planner Berger. Mr. McCrone questioned if the DRC had issues with the width of the private drive. To which Planner Berger noted there will be no parking allowed along one side of the drive and appropriate "no parking" signs will be required. Mr. Hanson asked Mr. Fox what type of housing is proposed. Mr. Fox responded the proposal is for affordable housing, based on levels of income, family-oriented with two and three bedrooms, and is tied with the Montana Board of Housing. Planning Director Epple noted it is a part of the Board of Housing project, which has been well received in Bozeman and compares to the Comstock Apartments on the east side of town. Mr. McCrone asked if the 8 1/2 X 11 elevation shows a change in roof pitch. Mr. Fox noted the roof pitch was changed to meet Entryway Corridor requirements and to prevent the roof from blocking the windows of the second floor. Mr. Hanson noted the flow of the site plan is interesting and creates a unique site. He commented that the trash enclosure will block the sidewalk and if it is located right on the street. He recommended the trash enclosures be moved back and downsized. He noted the design of the Design Review Board Minutes-April 13,1999 2 buildings bother him, including the roof pitches, and the long, blank elevations. He suggested alternatives such as the addition of lower pitched roofs. Mr. McCrone noted that he concurs with most of what Mr. Hanson said. He noted it is difficult to follow what is happening from one building to the other. He noted that, on the whole, the plan is reasonably well done, given the budget restrictions. He noted a fence may not be needed around the play area. Planner Berger noted the Parks and Advisory Board recommended a fence be placed around the play area for the safety of small children. Mr. McCrone suggested the wainscot or the band (condition#3) should be a suggestion, not a condition. Mr. Sorenson concurred with Mr. Hanson's comments. In response to Mr. Sorenson, Mr. Fox noted the dotted line delineates the playground and could well be the location of a tot-lot fence. Mr. Sorenson suggested the play area might be safer if it were fenced and shrubbery was added; however, the DRB shouldn't dictate common sense. He suggested that windows could be included on the sides between the buildings. He'd like to see shelters or small roofs over the entryways. Mr. Fox noted there were originally more windows, which were removed due to cost. Ms. Katz also concurred with Mr. Hanson's comments, however, she noted concerns with the lack of entryway coverings and the proportions of the windows, which appear to be too small. She suggested they be more in proportion to the structure and other windows. She suggested that more fenestration and windows would give relief to the blank walls. She noted the wainscoting is probably cost prohibitive, however, it would help break the height, especially if it went to the tops of the doors. In response to Ms. Katz, Mr. Fox noted he used hip roofs as he is a fan of Frank Lloyd Wright. Ms. Katz noted that the inclusion of entryway covers is more easily done with gabled roofs. In response to Mr. Sorenson, Mr. Fox noted they are looking at neutral colors, with a darker color on the bottom, a white in the middle, and a brown on the top, Chairperson Walker concurred with the comments around the table. In response to the Chair's question on the location of the foot bridges, Planner Berger suggested placing one near the office, which is near the playground area. Planning Director Epple noted that condition could be modified such that the locations be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Board. Chairperson Walker noted that she is in favor of reducing the mass of the buildings and opening up more green space. She noted the doorways seem to be located in odd places. She was concerned about the lack of a condition on color recommendations. Planner Berger noted she had placed the item in the discussion section of the conditions as a color palate has not been determined. She noted it will be required with the Final Site Plan. In response to Chairperson Walker, Planner Berger noted landscaping having to meet code is included in condition#5. Mr. Hanson suggested that the applicant work with the landscaping to maximize the green spaces Design Review Board Minutes-April 13,1999 3 by grouping the plantings. He noted the trees should be moved out of the sight triangle. Chairperson Walker asked if there are any trails existing or planned through this property. Planner Berger noted there are no trails proposed through this corridor and none exist. Chairperson Walker asked if Mr. Fox is solidly attached to the colors he discussed. Mr. Hanson suggested that the Board attempt to condition the color palate. He noted the problem areas of large wall expanses and the open entryways, and suggested wainscoting would be a more successful He suggested an item d)to condition#3, to incorporate additional window locations and low roofs over the entryways to break up the expanses of wall space. Ms. Katz asked for clarification of Mr. Hanson's suggested addition to condition#3 to change the roof pitch. Mr. Hanson asked if the roof pitch presented today would meet Staffs approval. Planner Berger noted that Planner Skelton did the architectural review and hasn't had an opportunity to review the rendition provided by the applicant today which shows 5:12 pitches. Chairperson Walker reviewed concerns of the Board and how to incorporate them into an approval. Ms. Katz noted the concerns are difficult to condition as they are qualitative not quantitative. Mr. Sorenson noted if it is possible to condition the project, he would be in support of it. He would like to see it one more time. Planning Director Epple noted there are two ways to handle it, hold up the application for additional materials or add to condition#3 a requirement for additional fenestration with the final building design to be reviewed by the DRB prior to the Final Site Plan approval. Ms. Katz noted that when an applicant comes for an informal on projects of this size, most of these issues are resolved. Chairperson Walker noted she is in favor of a two week delay to allow revised elevations to be submitted. Planning Director Epple noted that if the Board wants to review a revised plan, they have the discretion to do it, and, if so, it will go to the Planning Board at a later date. Mr. McCrone asked Mr. Hanson to reread his suggested addition to condition#3. Mr. Hanson suggested the addition of"incorporate additional windows and low roofs over entry doors to break up the large expanses" and be brought back to DRB for approval of final building design. Mr. Fox noted a two week delay would not affect him as the infrastructure has to be in place before the building can open. He noted his client may have an issue,however, in the long run, if there is a better design as an outcome,he felt it is well worth it. He noted he was limited by the number of units, their sq. footage, and the garages. He noted he can add windows to the master bedrooms, but other modifications would have to be approved by the financial board. Mr. McCrone moved to continue application#Z-9921 until the next meeting two weeks from today. Ms. Katz seconded. Mr. McCrone noted he is voting in favor of the motion as it will give the applicant time to address Design Review Board Minutes-April 13,1999 4 concerns raised by the Board today to allow the applicant to alter the elevations in accordance with recommended condition#3 and the entryway overlay guidelines. Mr. Hanson, Mr. Sorenson, Ms. Katz, and Chairperson Walker voted in favor with no further comments. The motion carried 5-0. In response to Mrs. Hash, Chairperson Walker clarified that no public comment is to be taken at DRB meetings. She stated that written comments are accepted prior to the meeting through the Planning Office. Mrs. Hash raised objection to the procedure of not receiving public oral comment. Mr. Hash suggested the wording of the notices be changed as it is misleading. B. HRDC MaSP/COA/Dev#Z-9926 - (Strahn) 26 South Tracy Avenue A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations to allow the rehabilitation of the Historic Post Office/Armory Structure into supportive services offices and construct a new structure for two transitional apartments, parking lot, and related site improvements. Jerry Taylor, Keith Belden, Ryan Smith, and Karen Roberty joined the DRB. Historic Preservation Officer/Planner Derek Strahn presented the application and reviewed the deviations. He noted Staff is in support of the application as it will preserve a key structure in the downtown area. He noted Staff is also in support of the removal of the addition on the east side of the structure, the addition of the duplex, and the additional parking being created. His main concern is with the compatibility of the duplex with other structures in the area. Staff is concerned with the use of Dryvit as it isn't a historic finish, but, this is a relatively minor concern. He noted Staff is in support of the preservation of the green space on the northwest corner as an amenity to the downtown area. He noted the applicants are being encouraged to use historic lighting overall and be consistent throughout the site. He noted that any signage will be reviewed by the City. Chairperson Walker asked if in condition#3A, he is recommending not using Dryvit or is he making it a condition. Planner Strahn noted that what is proposed by the applicants is not objectionable, however, if the exterior can be finished with a more historic material,that would be better. Mr. McCrone asked about the deviation for the drive aisle width. Planner Strahn noted at DRC Engineering Staff recommended that the drive aisle be narrow enough to discourage two-way traffic. Mr. McCrone noted that all other parking lots in the area encroach into the side yard setbacks for parking, therefore, the deviation is acceptable. Mr. McCrone noted he is in favor of preserving the green space. He is in favor of using materials that are more compatible with the historic nature of the existing structure, and recommended they do it. He noted he is in favor of the proposed historic-style lighting as modern lighting would be out of place. Mr. Taylor noted one of the two lights is not located on this property. He noted the proposed lights follow the lighting installed recently in front of First Security Bank and the downtown area. He commended Design Review Board Minutes-April 13,1999 5 Human Resources Development Council for revitalizing the building. Mr. Hanson abstained from discussion due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Sorenson asked how the applicant feels about the finishing materials on the duplex. Mr. Taylor noted various designs and materials were considered. He noted that Planner Strahn has led them toward using materials that are more historic. He discussed various materials and their feasibility. Mr. Smith noted the concept of the duplex is similar to a carriage house. Mr. Sorenson asked if one of the new members could discuss the landscaping. He asked Mr. Pohl about the use of European clump birch around the perimeter. Mr. Pohl noted it is an informal tree compared to the formal mass of the building. Mr. Sorenson noted that other trees would be more suitable. He noted he has no problem with Dryvit as a modernized element of stucco. Ms. Katz commended them for saving the building, noting it's a pleasure to see a project that is easy to visualize and legible being brought to the Board. She noted the duplex is a handsome building, however, Dryvit is not a good choice of material for preservation reasons. She is in full support of the project. She noted the preservation of the green spaces is commendable. She noted that budgets don't usually grow at the end, so if other materials are possible or recommended, then they should be conditioned at this point. Planner Strahn explained the tax credit monies for which they are eligible and for which applications have been sent, however, word has not been received if they will be granted them. Chairperson Walker noted she is in agreement with the conditions and in support of the deviations. MOTION: She moved to recommend approval with conditions as stated in the Staff report. Mr. McCrone seconded the motion. Ms. Katz stated she is in favor of the motion for reasons stated earlier. Mr. Sorenson stated he is in favor of the motion with staff conditions and recommended that the proposed birch trees be replaced with trees that are more ornamental. Mr. McCrone noted he is in favor of the motion based upon prior comments. Chairperson Walker stated she is in favor of the motion based on prior comments. The motion carried 5-0. Design Review Board Minutes-April 13,1999 For the Betterment of the DRB--- Chairperson Walker explained the reasoning for not having the new members vote at the first two meetings. Further technical aspects of the DRB were discussed. There being no Sher business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Kim Walker, airperson Design Revi Board Design Review Board Minutes-April 13,1999 7