Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-12-2000 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 CONFERENCE ROOM, ALFRED M. STIFF BUILDING, 20 EAST OLIVE STREET MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Henry Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3:34 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Bill Hanson Melvin Howe Jami Morris - Assistant Planner Jim Raznoff Dawn Smith John Sherman -Associate Planner Dan Glenn Jennifer Willems - Recording Secretary Joanne Mannell Noel Dick Pohl Henry Sorenson, Jr. Visitors Present Diane Stewart Cliff Chisholm Ben Lloyd Patrick Larum Phil Lang Van Bryan Carl Solvie Kay Newman Spencer Williams Jerry Smania ITEM 2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2000 AUGUST 22, 2000 (Not Available) ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. West Paw Design MiSP/COA -#Z-0108 - (Morris) 34368 East Frontage Road A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness, to construct a 14,900 square foot light manufacturing facility with 40 on-site parking spaces and related site improvements. Ben Lloyd, Pat Larum and Spencer Williams joined the DRB. Assistant Planner, Jami Morris, presented the staff report and reviewed the recommended conditions. Design Review Board Minutes-September 12,2000 1 Mr. Raznoff stated his concern about the building entrance and Planner Morris directed him to Guideline B-3 of the staff report,"Recommends making building entrances clear and highly visible". She explained to the DRB the apex height is 34 feet and is within code and explained what the code outlined in reference to roof height. Planner Morris stated the two conditions listed in the staff report are for the Design Review Board to consider and are not in place at this time. Planner Morris explained the subdivision has received preliminary approval and the final plat has been submitted to the Planning Department,but has not been finalized by the City Commission, which will not take place until October 2, 2000. Mr. Pohl stated his concern about the different plans presented. Planner Morris stated she had not listed the differences in the Staff Report. They included building orientation between engineering and the architectural drawings. Planner Morris referred the Board to the architectural plan presented. Mr. Lloyd stated the main structure is a metal building from an agricultural building manufacturing company which has a standard range of colors. The building will have metal siding with a pre-cast concrete main perimeter. Mr. Larum stated the color will be a light tone,tan or beige, something compatible to green, also the color of the metal upper surface will be antiqued with a weathered look to it. Mr. Hanson asked if the windows are recessed into flying beams or if there is roof with space behind. Mr. Larum stated this portion will be solid and the glass is recessed two or three feed back. He also stated the recessed band along the building is a"kal wall". Mr. Lloyd explained a kal wall is a translucent sky light which allows a lot of natural light to flow in for better work progress. He stated that a kal wall is white,translucent, not back lit. Mr. Spencer stated the"kal wall"is an amenity for the employees, to allow the sunlight to enter. Mr. Glenn stated he would like to see as much daylight as possible in such a large building. Mr. Spencer stated the warehouse is stocked with raw material and finished goods which does not need to be a very well lit area. Mr. Larum stated the specific roof type was chosen for support and efficiency. Mr. Pohl stated he would like to see a landscape plan with more definition, organization, and some plant beds. He also stated the feeling of entry to the building could be resolved by landscape design and plant selection. Mr. Spencer suggested the landscaping could be re-worked. Chairperson Sorenson expressed concern about the bare facades facing two major arteries and would like to see more landscaping. Mr. Lloyd stated they are trying to get the articulation set up for the back facade. Mr. Williams stated they have kept the entryway very simple keeping it a low profile to minimize the fact they are a retail store. Mr. Larum stated they have not decided whether or not to put a canopy over the other entryway. West Paw wants to create an identifiable facade. Chairperson Sorenson stated a small sign would create a sense of entry. Mr. Hanson suggested they look at structural issues as there maybe a soil problem. Mr. Larum stated the top 6 or 7 feet is not good soil; they are proposing to excavate to gravel, then use the fill from there, or use separation of fabrics and geo-grid. Mr. Hanson suggested investigating some precast options of banding to break up the tall walls of the facade. Mr. Lloyd stated they would consider it. Design Review Board Minutes-September 12,2000 2 MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, application #Z-0108 with staff recommendations. The motion carried 6-0. 2. Best Western Gran Tree Inn MaSP/COA -#Z-0114 - (Sherman) 1325 North 7' Avenue A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to add a 7600 square foot conference room; 18 additional guest rooms, 4800 square feet per floor x 2 floors, and related site expansion and improvements. A variance will be required. Cliff Chisholm and Carl Solvie joined the DRB. Associate Planner John Sherman presented the Staff Report and conditions. Planner Sherman stated the proposed retaining wall would give an 8 foot grade difference between the wall and the adjoining property. He added the access drive encroaches into the side yard set back more than five feet so a variance will be requested and the required parking for the site will be met. He noted the requested parking variance would allow the parking to encroach into the side yard. Mr. Solvie stated they are marketing for specific size convention groups and have made room to accomplish this. Mr. Chisholm stated their desire is to maximize the facility size to facilitate the size of the events they expect. The DRB members determined they will need to revisit the site plan to make sure the landscaping meets code. The materials, articulation, texture, and patterns will match that of the existing building. Planner Sherman recommended conditional approval based on the conditions in the staff report which primarily deal with the landscape issues and color pallets. He stated the lighting fixtures meet code, however, they need to be tilted downward instead of upward. Ingress and egress from Baxter Street are being addressed by conditions from the Engineering Department. Mr. Glenn suggests a series of smaller signs and feels the current interstate sign is inappropriate. Planner Sherman stated the variance granted previously for signage is under review by the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Chisholm presented color photo boards to explain the project. He stated with the expansion, the hotel will have the largest banquet and conference room in town. Once the conference center is utilized there will be more need for internal access to the conference center as apposed to the entrance from the south side, which is the reason the main entrance is located on the back facade. He noted there is a fair amount of cultured stone, exposed timers, and green metal roofs along the south elevation. He continued, there is also a"kal wall" and clear story windows which will allow some Design Review Board Minutes-September 12,2000 3 natural light into the building. He stated the plans have followed the pattern of the existing building as much as possible. Architectural features have been added to relieve the"box look" of the large convention room. Mr. Chisholm presented a three dimensional model, and stated the building is a U-shape. A cornice and gabled portions will be added at the entrance. Mr. Hanson suggested asking the designer to study the grade drop on the west property to the future neighbors to the west. Mr. Solvie stated the building was constructed in the mid 70's with a flat roof. He added trim is being added to articulate the flat roof. Mr. Glenn suggested expanding the canopies. Mr. Solvie stated all canopies hold snow and would pose a safety issue on the sidewalks below. Mr. Glenn noted the problem is caused by the perimeter sidewalk being butted up to the building. He stated the parking lot has no landscaping except for the islands. Chairperson Sorenson agreed saying there is too much asphalt and not enough green spaces. He suggested removing the three extra parking spaces to avoid the need for a variance and replace them with landscaping. Mr. Chisholm asked for recommendations from DRB to take to the City commission on the parking issue. He stated the parking shown on the plans is more than needed. Mr. Solvie stated they are willing to make parking changes but does not want to spend a lot of time and money on plans that will not get approved. Chairperson Sorenson stated the DRB could recommend precedent be given to landscaping over parking requirements. Mr. Hanson moved, Mr.Pohl seconded, to add a 5th condition in which the landscaping requirements has precedent over the parking spaces. Motion carried unanimously. C. The Headlands PUD/MaSub Pre-Ap -#P-0033 - (Skelton) Bridger Drive �F A Major Subdivision Pre-Application to create 28 single family residential lots on 27.34 acres. D. The Headlands Concept PUD -#Z-0129- (Skelton) Bridger Drive A PUD Concept Plan review to create 28 single family residential lots on 27.34 acres. These projects were presented as informal reviews. Van Bryan,Jerry Smania and Dave Soveleski joined the DRB. Mr. Smania stated the first plan presented to the DRB was a scheme of 28 single family lots on 27 acres flanked by 1 acre residential sites. He noted it has a very slight 25 to 30 foot slope towards Bozeman. He stated the parcel of land fronts towards Bridger Drive. He noted a divider of berms, paths, and trees will form a sound and visual buffer from the highway. Discussion followed on density, the number of lots, and the number of current drive-accesses from Bridger Drive. Mr. Glenn stated the plans show garages dominating the front of the homes,which is against what is generally preferred. Mr. Soveleski stated the garage will act as a buffer from Bridger Drive. Mr. Design Review Board Minutes-September 12,2000 4 Smania stated there is an existing pathway system proposed that would be linked to the existing paths. Mr. Bryan commented the houses will be placed in different directions with respect to Bridger Canyon. Mr. Glenn each cluster take on their own character, with a sense of privacy in a neighborhood inside of neighborhood. Chairperson Sorenson stated he liked the linear park along Bridger Drive and the larger single park. Mr. Glenn noted he would like to see density higher, however exposing houses to Bridger Drive could be problematic. Mr. Raznoff suggested looking at widening streets and enlarge the mini square to approach what was on the original plan. He also suggested not orienting all of the homes north and south, but using more random orientation. He stated he would like to see more development on the second plan by enlarging the mini-square. Planner Sherman stated the minimum diameter of a cul-de-sac is 100 feet. He suggested a PUD Application which would allow smaller lot sizes. Mr. Smania commented the homeowners' association would maintain the bermed areas between Bridger Drive and the proposed development. He also stated there would be a lot of materials removed to establish the base of the road,which will be used for berming. He noted the utilities all would be underground. ITEM 4. DISCUSSION ITEM A. Bozeman 2020 Plan Goals and Objectives -(Olsen) A Discussion to review the draft goals and policies for the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, which will form the foundation for the future regulatory policy. The Discussion Item was placed on hold. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Glenn moved, Mr.Hanson seconded, to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. r 1,4z� He ry Sor nson, Chairperson Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-September 12,2000 5 ATTENDANCE ROSTER SEPTEMBER 12,2000 Those persons attending the Bozeman Design Review Board meeting are requested to sign the attendance roster. PLEASE PRINT neatly and legibly. NAME ADDRESS r 2. CL GWIsUDLitj tkv(st/ f 6UC4j �l-Cp pc7s 3. C�AA U 00 X �o j 4. (4WN {��� Inc (t�'3 7. 9. JL c� 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.