Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-23-2000 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice Chairperson Henry Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Henry Sorenson Ed McCrone Jami Morris, Assistant Planner Dan Glenn Bill Hanson Therese Berger, Assistant Planner Melvin Howe Joanne Mannell Noel Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Jim Raznoff Andrew Epple, Director of Planning & Dick Pohl Community Development Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Visitors Present John Brown for Darigold Stephen Hundley Rob Pertzborn Gene Graf Van Bryan Lea Shute ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2000 Vice Chairperson Sorenson called for corrections or additions to the minutes. Mr. Pohl noted a correction in the project description "fire" to "five". MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Glenn seconded, to approve the minutes with Mr. Pohl's correction. The motion carried unanimously. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Darigold Addition CUP/ COA Application Re-Review#Z-0030 - (Morris) 1001 North Seventh Avenue Re-Review of North 71h Avenue landscape and pedestrian circulation design for Darigold, as per City Commission Direction. John Brown, Attorney for applicant,joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Jami Morris presented the application, noting the City Commission sent the application back to DRB to review the front parking lot/landscaped area. Planner Morris noted Staff recommended that a 191/2 foot landscape strip be installed in front of the lot. She noted the Sacajawea Park sidewalk will be re- aligned to line up with the sidewalk for the proposed Darigold sidewalk. She stated that the street trees and shrubbery are indicated on the revised plans. Design Review Board Minutes-May 23,2000 1 Mr. Glenn asked if the new proposal will accommodate parking in front of the building and the future addition to the front elevation. Planner Morris noted the revised plan would allow parking for now and an addition later. Mr. Glenn noted that parking is allowed along North 7`h Avenue, therefore, parking is not needed in front of the building. Mr. Pohl suggested signage be added to indicate the parking area on the north end of the lot. Concerns of the DRB were: if the parking in front of the structure will accommodate parking requirements, including the future addition; the screening along the park; and the ability to make left turns from the property onto North 71h Avenue. Staff noted adequate parking has been shown for current needs and for the future addition, the proposed plantings in the park will provide adequate screening, and the signal at Oak Street and North 7`h Avenue provides a break for access onto North 7`h Avenue. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Glenn seconded, to approve the street landscaping as proposed with approval of Planning Staff. The motion carried unanimously 2. Firestone CUP/COA#Z-0047 - (Morris) 810 North 71h Avenue A Conditional Use Permit with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to demolish the existing Sunset Motel structures and construct an eight bay Firestone tire and auto service facility. Rob Pertzborn joined the DRB. Planner Jami Morris presented the staff report, and noted there is one recommended condition. Mr. Pertzborn noted changes to the plans include a four foot jog on the North 71h elevation and the addition of windows added on the North 7`h Avenue elevation. He noted the applicant decided not to include the DRB recommendations received at the informal review. He indicated the pathway to the restrooms. He asked if fewer trees would be required due to the sight triangles and if Austrian pine would be suitable as a hedge. Mr. Pohl responded Austrian Pines wouldn't be a hedge, however, they would provide adequate screening. Mr. Pertzborn stated the finish is white dryvit red and blue trim, however, the owners are in agreement to consider a different color scheme, then described the color scheme proposed. He described the alternatives he is proposing. MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to recommend approval with the color scheme to be considered in two weeks. Mr. Glenn stated he prefers the use of red and blue as highlights. He asked if the applicant had considered windows on the North 71h elevation. Mr. Pertzborn noted they have, but are on a tight budget and couldn't justify them. Mr. Pohl stated he has no problem with the color scheme. Mr. Raznoff stated the clerestory windows that were suggested in the informal should be used. Mr. Pohl disagreed, stating the clerestory windows would call attention to the long expanse. He Design Review Board Minutes-May 23,2000 2 suggested planting vines along that wall to provide more greenery. The motion carried unanimously. Vice-Chairperson Sorenson noted the colors being displayed in the bands may be in bands that are too wide. Mr. Pertzborn showed the location of the red,white, and blue bands, which are located along the Tamarack Street elevation. Vice-Chairperson Sorenson suggested that the wide gray stripe at the top be continued around from the front to the North 7th Avenue elevation with blue and red accents. He noted that subdued colors will probably make the project more elegant. He asked DRB to comment on the use of red and blue on the front of the building. The Board commented on the use of colors and made various suggestions. Planner Morris asked if the item is to be continued as an agenda item or should she just route it. The Board asked to have it an agenda item. 3. Vilano Beach MiSP/COA/Dev#Z-0043 - (Berger) 1104 East Main Street A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate Of Appropriateness and Deviations in the Entryway Corridor Overlay District to renovate both the interior and the exterior of an existing structure for use as a family restaurant, including the addition on the east elevation,facade changes, and parking lot and landscaping improvements. Leah Chute and Van Bryan joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Therese Berger presented the Staff Report noting that condition#9 (color palette/materials sample) is up for discussion by the DRB, then described the requested deviations. She noted the existing parking area located west of the building is on a separate lot. Mr. Bryan noted there is potential for future development on the other lot. He noted the asphalt will be cut to install the landscaping on the east and north elevations. He noted there will be no direct entrance to the building from the east,however, someone could park there. Mr. Glenn asked where the switch occurs from zero setback to 25' setback. Staff noted the B-3 district allows for zero setbacks in certain instances.. Discussion followed on setbacks, screening at the rear of the property, number of parking spaces provided, materials and colors, street trees required, and sidewalk installation. It was noted that since this is a B-2 district,the setbacks are 25' in front, 8' on the sides and 10'in the rear; the number of parking stalls is adequate; the deep,waving,gray metal siding is appropriate; the existing and proposed screening will be adequate; street trees will be required every 50' of street frontage; and the sidewalk will be extended. Mr. Bryan was commended on the upgrade of the property. Planner Berger explained the need for an easement to allow room for back-up maneuverability from the Staff parking area. Ms. Chute noted some of the mechanical equipment is being removed and some will be screened with parapets. She noted that any additional mechanical equipment is being tucked back into recesses and low spots. She continued, they are trying to get the hip roof to disappear. Ms. Chute noted the width of the access is required by MDT to be 40'. Design Review Board Minutes-May 23,2000 3 Planner Berger noted the DRB can recommend that a narrower access be considered. She noted the City's curb cut standard is 35', and MDT will allow for access widths less than 40' if the radius is 15'. Mr. Pohl noted he'd like to see more of a street tree effect along Main Street rather than clustered trees. He felt that others would emulate the effect if started here. It is a handsome remodel, however, he prefers the darker metal color. Mr. Howe asked if the sidewalk is existing. Ms. Chute noted the sidewalk will be extended. Mr. Howe preferred the darker color siding. Planner John Sherman noted the Board could make a determination now if they are going to move from less reflective facades to brick or whatever, and, should the transition be made, does the DRB consider the proposed material suitable. Planner Berger stated there is quite a distance from this building to the brick structures of downtown. Mr. Glenn noted he sees the Food Coop on Main Street as a precedent for the use of steel exteriors, and there are steel buildings on Mendenhall Street and Wallace Avenue. He noted that whether the building is brick or not will not make it downtown Main Street. His concern is with the site plan, and feels it could be better. He noted there is a massive amount of asphalt, and suggested the applicant move 5 of the parking spaces in the center island, and create more green space along the east and/or north property lines. He suggested making an expansive green island and a apply for a deviation for fewer parking spaces. Director Epple noted there is a drainage easement along the rear of the property. He stated there will be a 25' landscape buffer in the setback along the street. MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved to recommend approval of the application as presented in the Staff Report, with a recommendation that the applicant apply for a deviation to reduced parking. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved to recommend approval, Mr. Raznoff seconded, as presented .in the Staff Report. The motion carried 4-1, with Mr. Glenn voting against it. Ms. Chute noted that the 8' side yard setbacks will be done, and with the plantings and groupings, everything will be screened except the access. Sidewalks will be extended as well. 4. South Meadows MaSub and PUD Prelim. Plat#P-0023 #P-0024 - (Skelton) 3300 Graf Street 7F A Major Subdivision Application and a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat Application for a 100 unit condominium development on 25.935 acres. (CONTINUED TO 6-13-00) The secretary distributed a memo which stated that the project has been continued to June 131h at the request of the applicant. Design Review Board Minutes-May 23,2000 4 5. Gallatin Center,Lot 10 MaSP#Z-0038 - (Sherman) North 191h Avenue and Valley Center Road �f A Major Site Plan Application to construct an 89,860 sq. ft. retail space among five buildings. Gene Graf and Steve Hundley joined the DRB. Associate Planner John Sherman distributed a memo received from Joanne Mannell Noel. Planner Sherman presented his memorandum and staff report, stating his job is to see if the amenities and the guidelines are in place. Based on that and the lengthy staff report, Staff finds that the proposal does not meet the Gallatin Center guidelines and Staff does not support the proposal. He noted they are about 35% over the number of required parking spaces. Mr.Hundley, architect,noted he sympathizes with the citizens of Bozeman with wanting the City to be pedestrian oriented. He described the changes to the plans since the last meeting, and indicated the trails,wetlands, and pathways which are located off site. He noted they are not purporting to be a downtown environment,but he felt a better comparison would be with Bridger Peaks. He indicated the bands of green space on the plans demonstrates the desire to create a pedestrian friendly site with the Fen as a barrier between the big box stores and the smaller retail stores. He stated they are using clustering to group the smaller retail stores, and described how pedestrians can interact between businesses in the area. He noted there is a need to balance the need for parking vehicles and pedestrian circulation. He stated that if DRB feels another point of access to area businesses is necessary, he will include it. He described the arrangement of the buildings is to create an interior courtyard for service vehicles. He stated the front elevations screen the mechanical equipment. Discussion followed on the actual changes made since the last submission. Mr. Hundley noted the new plans show changes in the elevations, the landscaping, the addition of a trail, and the addition of a bridge over the stream. Planner Sherman presented an overlay rendition of what he felt the DRB desired from last meeting, noting the newest proposal is greatly improved. The Board noted Planner Sherman's rendition shows greater pedestrian circulation. Mr. Graf gave a history of the whole project,noting the current proposal is to provide a shorter building expanse along North 19'Avenue by using a U-shaped arrangement. He noted that what Planner Sherman is proposing wasn't possible 8-10 years ago when the PUD was being drafted and was proceeding through the process. Mr. Pohl noted the problem is with the scale of the project, and suggested the main pathway be developed at a larger scale. He feels that 4' of greenway space isn't adequate. Mr. Glenn stated Staff wrote a 12 page report listing the deficiencies of the project. He doesn't feel Mr. Hundley has met those concerns, and the architect is willing to make only very minor changes. He is concerned that another project in three weeks will be just the same thing. He Design Review Board Minutes-May 23,2000 5 s critiqued the drawing of the plaza with what is actually in the site plan, and noted the 30% greenspace mostly encircles the parking lots. Mr. Graf noted there are 4000 trees and bushes in the Costco parking lot, with an equivalent amount on the Target lot. Vice-Chairperson Sorenson asked to see the plan for the whole project. He noted the opportunity is now to design what is best for Bozeman and Gallatin County. The Board discussed the need to deal with Planner Sherman's concerns with the architectural design of the building. Mr. Howe noted that the guidelines are a form of a contract. Mr. Hundley noted they were required to submit the theme of the project when the PUD was originally approved. Planner Sherman noted they may or may not be adhering to the conceptual plans, however, the guidelines are not being met. Mr. Howe stated the DRB should be willing and able to support the Planning Staffs review of the project against the guidelines. He feels the DRB and the applicant are coming together, however, they are not meeting. MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded, to recommend denial of the project. The motion carried unanimously. Vice Chairperson Sorenson noted it isn't flat roofs on the structures that the DRB is denying, but the overall project. He'd like to see more of an overall plan and how the pedestrian paths will be activated. Planner Sherman asked if the DRB would consider other renditions. He stated that Mr. Hundley has made concessions and Planning Staff is willing to continue working to a consensus. DRB asked that Staff and the applicant continue to work towards consensus and bring back modified or new plans. Planner Sherman reviewed possible schedules if a new set of plans are submitted. Mr. Hundley noted he will not go to City Commission without a positive recommendation from DRB. ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the DRB, Mr. Howe moved to adjourn. The meet. was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Henry S renson, Vice Chairperson, Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-May 23,2000 6