Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-13-2000 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY,JUNE 13, 2000 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Ed McCrone called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. He made two changes in the order of the agenda - the informal for Taco Bell would occur before the Gallatin Center review, and he added the item "Liaison to the DRB" as a Discussion Item at the end of the agenda. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Ed McCrone Bill Hanson Therese Berger,Assistant Planner Dick Pohl Mel Howe Jami Morris, Assistant Planner Joanne Mannell Noel Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Dan Glenn Andrew Epple, Director, Planning Jim Raznoff and Community Development Henry Sorenson Carol Schott, Recording Secretary ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2000 Chairperson McCrone called for corrections or additions to the minutes of May 23, 2000. Mr. Sorenson amended the minutes, replacing"looked faded"with "make the project more elegant". MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried unanimously. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Montana AIeworks Mods #Z-99108 - (Berger) 2825 West Main Street X A Proposed Modification to an Application for a Final Site PIan to eliminate a fence and signage from the original plan. Mike Delaney and John Sinrud joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Therese Berger presented the Staff Memo which outlined the changes in conditions due to the requested modifications. Planner Berger gave a brief review of the variance previously granted for this property. Mr. Delaney explained the reasons for eliminating the front fence, the removal of the front gated entry, and the need to change the entrance sign design. He stated the water tower seemed unfriendly and the tenant didn't want it installed. He noted that Engelmann ivy will be growing up the east and south facades of the buildings. He disagreed with the required repair of the crumbling brick and felt it adds to Design Review Board Minutes-June 13,2000 1 the historic nature of the structure. He stated he has applied for placement of the structure on the National Historic Register. He noted there are no protruding features from the roof to indicate it is a commercial structure. He noted there is a proposed fence behind the structure to screen the rear elevation. He asked that he not be required to paint the mechanical elements on the structure. He suggested the mechanical equipment is visible only on the north elevation, however, that is an industrial neighborhood. Mr. Delaney noted the new building,which will be proposed to the east of this structure,will be constructed very close to the current structure. He noted the east elevation of Montana Aleworks will be blocked by the future building. Planner Berger discussed the original condition#15,which refers to the fence and signage, and indicated the condition would need to be modified to relate to these proposed modifications. In response to Mr. Sorenson, Mr. Sinrud indicated the Engelmann ivy and dogwood are installed. Mr.Pohl noted he felt the decorative fence added character to the property and should be installed per the originally approved submittal. He agreed with the rest of the modifications, however, the retention ponds need to be installed as required by the City. Mr. Glenn noted the rational for installing a fence was to divide the sidewalk from the private space along the street frontage, however,the scale of the fence might make the building stand-offish. He would like to see some sort of decorative fence, 12" to 18" high to define the area. Mr. Delaney noted the tenant feels the fence would block the view from Main Street, and it could be tripped over. Mr. Glenn noted the gateway was designed to maintain the streetscape, and he would like to see some sort of indication of a street-wall at the entryway. Mr. Delaney concurred, however, the construction of the future building would be in the site triangle of this parking lot. Mr. Sorenson complimented the design, stating that though the water tower fits the design,he has no problem with it being eliminated. He felt the aluminum mechanical equipment doesn't meed to be painted,however, he stated he'd like a fence to somehow define the space. Ms. Mannell Noel stated she would find the fence to be warm and inviting. She noted the continuation of the lighting and trees will tie this structure to the future structure. Mr. Sinrud noted the maturation of the trees will close the gap between the two structures in eight to ten years. Chairperson McCrone stated the applicant has met all 21 conditions of the original application. He noted the fence may be inconsistent with the new structure, and, therefore, may be difficult to install at this time. He concurred that the removal of the water tower would not be detrimental to the project. Mr.Delaney noted he'd like to keep the fence there and would install it if conditioned by the DRB. MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved to recommend approval of all the requested modifications with the Design Review Board Minutes-June 13,2000 2 exception of the fence, which is to be installed as originally designed. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mannell Noel, and carried 6-0. B. South Meadows MaSub/PUD Preliminary Plat#P-0023 #P-0024 - (Skelton) 3300 Graf Street X A Major Subdivision Application and a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat Application for a 100 unit condominium development on 25.935 acres. (Continued from May 23, 2000) Gene Graf, Ken LeClair joined the DRB. Senior Planner Dave Skelton presented the Staff Report, noting no public comment or testimony has been received. Planner Skelton explained what the DRB's role is in this review. Mr. LeClair presented the application, noting one issue was with public access to the project. He noted there have been two connections to Sourdough Trail added in response to that issue. Mr. Pohl asked if the original platting was connected to Sundance Springs. Planner Skelton stated it is north of Sundance Springs, being it's own parcel of land and distributed a plan of the four lots in the Graf minor subdivision, noting the lot being proposed for the PUD is Lot 4. Mr. LeClair noted that most people walk in the streets in this type of neighborhood and he doesn't feel sidewalks are needed. Discussion followed on the snow storage areas, traditional neighborhoods with a private driveways, and informal streetscapes. In response to Chairperson McCrone, Planner Skelton noted the PUD would allow the ability to construct more dwelling units than under the R-2 zoning, however, the site would limit more units due to the existing wetlands and mature vegetation. Concerns of DRB included the possible extension of streets beyond the lot; the location of the sidewalks in the subdivision; the existing wetlands not being disturbed; landscape points; and the location of trail(s). Responses to the D.R.B.'s concerns were the street is not proposed to cross Sourdough Trail per the request of the Parks and Rec. Board. The Board concurred that sidewalks should be installed on both sides of Graf Street and possibly along streets within the other three lots. Mr. Graf explained that the Parks and Rec Board didn't want to cut a street through Sourdough Trail and stream corridor , therefore, he requested a variance to cul-de-sac the street.. Mr. Sorenson commended the applicant on the curvilinear aspect of the project. Mr. LeClair noted the mature trees are Iocated in the dark green shaded areas and are full of wildlife. He indicated the one street crossing to the north which will require the mitigation of wetlands. Planner Skelton noted this application is not a Site Plan review, Design Review Board Minutes-June 13,2000 3 therefore there are no required landscaping points under Chapter 18.50 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, Chapter 18.55 regarding planned unit developments has specific landscape requirements with this type of residential development. It was noted trails would not be appropriate in residents back yards, but will be located on the subject property, connected by sidewalks. Mr. Raznoff suggested moving complexes 99, 98, and 49 and 50 to accommodate more space between them for the connecting trails as per staff's comments. Mr. Sorenson stated porches define front facades and the proposed color scheme is just fine. He stated sidewalks are needed to delineate where strollers belong. Ms. Mannell Noel concurred with the need for sidewalks, even if only installed on one side of the street. Mr. Pohl commended the protection of the wetlands, and the linkage with Sourdough Trail. Mr. LeClair noted the structures can be shifted to provide more room for the trail between them. He noted he could install sidewalks on the side where parking is allowed. MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved, Chairperson McCrone seconded, to recommend approval of the development with the introduction of sidewalks through out the site on both sides of the street, and accept the remainder of the project as proposed. Mr. Sorenson asked that a clear definition of public vs private trails be placed on the property. AMENDMENT: Mr. Sorenson amended the motion, Ms. Mannell Noel seconded, to include indicators that suggest fencing or landscaping or ground materials to indicate where public and private areas begin and end. Mr. Raznoff stated he is not in favor of the motion as he feels that sidewalks are not necessary in this development unless parking is on only one side of the street, though he agreed with the amendment to the motion. Ms. Mannell Noel noted the cul- de-sacked areas don't need sidewalks, only the streets that connect to other streets on each end. The amendment to the motion carried 6-0. The motion failed with Mr. Glenn and Ms. Mannell Noel in favor of the motion. Chairperson McCrone, Mr. Pohl, and Mr. Raznoff voted against it. Mr. Sorenson abstained. MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Ms. Mannell Noel seconded, to recommend the installation of pedestrian sidewalks on one side of the street, exclusive of cul-de-sacs that do not provide a linkage with the trail, Design Review Board Minutes-June 13,2000 4 the designation of the trails as public and private, and other items as presented by Staff. The motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Raznoff voting against it. C. Firestone CUP/COA#Z-0047 - (Morris) 810 North 7" Avenue A Conditional Use Permit with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to consider the design and colors for the Firestone Building. (Continued from May 23, 2000) Rob Pertzborn joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Jami Morris explained the continuance directed by the City Commission to allow the DRB the opportunity to review the proposed colors, which Mr. Pertzborn explained were a bright dark blue, a vibrant red, and white. The DRB determined the color scheme was acceptable. MOTION: Mr. Sorenson moved, Mr. Glenn seconded, to recommend approval of the color palette for application#Z-0047 to the City Commission as presented to the Board today. The motion carried 6- 0. D. Gallatin Center, Lot 10, MaSP#Z-0038 - (Sherman) North 191h Avenue and Valley Center Road A Major Site Plan Application to construct an 89,860 sq. ft. retail space among five buildings. Steve Hundley, Yvonne Jarrett, Phil Montgomery, Gene Graf, and Steve Classon joined the DRB. Associate Planner John Sherman presented the history of the project, reviewed the Staff Memo, and conditions for DRB's consideration. Steve Classon presented the changes including: the sidewalk is 9 feed wider, which eliminated one set of parking; he's created a pedestrian plaza between units 2 and 3, with a speed hump in front of the retail space. He reviewed the changes in the elevations, including, the reduction of the building heights, the reduction of the eave line in the popping out of the store fronts. Planner Sherman noted the applicant is in agreement with condition#1, however, his concern is with the blank walls left between the phases. Mr. Glenn suggested the addition of a wall that would eventually become the foundation for tenants 5, 6, and 7. Ms. Mannell Noel noted the MSU art department could help coordinate art work for the Fen. She offered to work with Mr. Graf. Mr. Sorenson commented on how to get pedestrians to access the Fen from this project to the future ones on the other side of the creek. He feels the space between tenants 2 and 3 needs more three dimensional enhancement, however, the elevations are improved. Design Review Board Minutes-June 13,2000 5 Mr. Pohl complimented the development of the pedestrian spaces, stating the pedestrian linkage across Burke Street to Bennigan's Restaurant site is weak. He suggested establishing a tree nursery,which would act as screening, on the south side of the site for futur3e use when the site is completed. Ms. Mannell Noel asked if the main pedestrian connector can be make wider and give more emphasis to the plaza next to Burke street, which will eventually connect to the restaurant. It was noted this is not a plaza, however, it has different pavers to slow traffic down. Mr. Glenn suggested driving aisle neck-downs be installed to slow traffic at key points. He shares Planner Sherman's concern with the short term/long term phasing and how landscape phasing ties in. Planner Sherman noted he will hold them to landscaping the area along North 19"Avenue, the exterior landscaping along Burke Street, and in the Fen with this application. Chairperson McCrone stated he is not as concerned with screening the rear facades as he is with conditions#1,#2, #4, #5, and#6. He suggested that Staff work with the applicant to handle condition #3 with the applicant. Mr. Classon suggested the pedestrian pathways be submitted for ADR approval. Chairperson McCrone suggested that any proposed changes in landscaping be reviewed by Staff. The Board concurred that a 6`walkway with 5'of landscaping on each side on the main walkway would be adequate. MOTION: Chairperson McCrone moved, Mr. Pohl seconded, to recommend approval of application #Z-0038 with Staff conditions#1, #2, #4, #5, and#6. Mr. Montgomery asked if the building designs for tenant 4 and the retail space comply with what is approved and comes in on the same schedule, could it be reviewed in-house. The Board concluded those designs would be reviewed by the DRB at a later date. AMENDMENT: Following discussion on the conditions, Chairperson McCrone moved, Mr. Pohl seconded, to amend the motion to omit condition#5, and allow condition#3 to be worked out between the applicant and Staff. The amendment carried 6-0. It was concluded that ADR Staff will review the pedestrian amenities. The motion carried 5-0, with Mr. Glenn abstaining. Design Review Board Minutes-June 13,2000 6 ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW Taco Bell - Informal - (Berger) 2825 West Main Street 1 An Informal Review for advice and comment regarding a proposed drive-through facility at the Gallatin Valley Mall. Mac Fogelson joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Therese Berger presented the Staff Memo. She noted Staff will be referring the applicant to the Design Objectives Plan and Bozeman Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fogelson presented the application proposal. Mr. Sorenson suggested more green space would make the area more pedestrian friendly. Discussion followed on the possibility of flipping the plan. The advantages included: two sets of three parking stalls would be placed on the mall site with the proposed parking area made into green space. A disadvantage was that safe passageway across the "street"between the parking lot and the restaurant would be needed. Mr. Pohl stated he was concerned with the back of the building facing the mall. He suggested flopping the structure east to west. Mr. Sorenson suggested the addition of awnings and a method for tapping into the existing mall parking rather than paving more area. Mr. Glenn suggested rerouting the "street" to allow parking in front of the structure. ITEM 7. DISCUSSION ITEM - Liaison to the DRB Chairperson McCrone stated he had sent e-mails to the Board members to deal with the amount of time Commissioner Kirchhoff took during the last DRB meeting. He stated he feels there should be a separation of powers and non-board members should neither debate nor vote on items unless called upon. He noted that in the past, the liaison has been a passive attendee. He doesn't feel the Zone Code allows participation of non-board member in the DRB meeting. He doesn't want to discourage the attendance of the liaison, however, he is opposed to the liaison member participating in the discussions. He noted Commissioner Kirchhoff disagrees with him. Commissioner Kirchhoff stated to him that he feels it is good for the process to have the Commission involved at this level. Director Epple noted that the Mayor or City Manager have indicated to the liaison that he should not be a participant at the DRB meeting. Chairperson McCrone stated he is not asking for a decision from the Board. Mr. Glenn noted that given the fact that the discussion was on an informal application, he welcomed the liaison's input. He does agree that the liaison may not want to sit through these long meetings. Design Review Board Minutes-June 13,2000 7 Chairperson McCrone stated he doesn't want to dampen the Iiaison's enthusiasm. Ms. Mannell Noel noted if he does participate, he needs to stay on track. ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT There bein er business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Ed McCrone, hairperson, Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-June 13,2000 8 ATTENDANCE ROSTER JUNE 13, 2000 Those persons attending the Bozeman Design Review Board meeting are requested to sign the attendance roster. PLEASE PRINT neatly and legibly. NAME ADDRESS 2. /,,,/6 j IP'V I e-! &d k 4,A 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.