Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-2000 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. and the Secretary recorded the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Melvin Howe Jim Raznoff Assistant PIanner, Karin Caroline Dawn Smith Senior Planner, Dave Skelton Dick Pohl Recording Secretary, Jennifer Willems Henry Sorenson Joanne Mannell Noel Bill Hanson Dan Glenn Visitors Present Joe Frost Lowell Springer Mr. MacDonald ITEM 2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 15,AUGUST 22,AND OCTOBER 10, 2000 Mr. Howe moved, Mrs. Noel seconded, to approve minutes of August 15, 2000, August 22, 2000, and October 10, 2000. Motion carried unanimously. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. StoneRidge Offices MaSP/COA -#Z-00149 - (Caroline) 2015-2135 Charlotte Street A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to develop three 5,000 square foot office buildings and related site improvements. Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Springer joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Caroline presented the project and reviewed the thirteen conditions listed in the staff report, noting the high points about landscaping and architecture. She noted the signage is not acceptable per the PUD. Planner Caroline pointed out on the plan the two locations of the free standing signs and explained only one free standing sign is allowed and one wall mounted sign allowed. She explained the applicants were going to look at the plan and figure out the best location for the free standing sign. She explained what the sign code allowed as far as amount of total square feet per development. Design Review Board Minutes-October 24, 2000 1 Planner Caroline stated the applicant will continue the 4'brick facade around the building with the exception of where the meters or utility boxes are located and where the elevation is broken. Mr. Hanson asked what"sill features"meant. Planner Caroline stated sill features are proposed to give the building two dimensional depth and character to the overall design. Mr. Pohl stated the retention basin goes on to the extended property. Planner Caroline stated Catron Creek needs to be adequately surveyed to make sure the building setback stays out of the 35'stream setback. Mr. Hansen noted the signage problem and asked how the city has interpreted business signage on an individual building when there are multiple tenants. Planner Caroline stated underneath a comprehensive sign plan, typically the signs are submitted for all commercial uses of two or more tenant occupants. Mr. Hansen stated each business needs to be able to identify who and what their businesses are by means of signage. Planner Caroline stated there needs to be flexibility in the signage, but according to the PUD guidelines only one building mounted sign is allowed based on the configuration of the type of lot with multiple tenants. The DRB suggests one small ground sign per building. Planner Caroline stated the total signage is one square foot per linear foot of building frontage, noting the guidelines state 80 square feet or the square footage of the frontage,which ever is smaller. Mr. MacDonald stated the goal of this project is to have smaller buildings with smaller businesses, noting there is a high demand for single level, easy entry offices that are easy to find for convenient use. He stated the complex is divided into nine separate condominium offices. Mr. MacDonald noted an issue in design is to keep maintenance to a minimum. He noted trim around windows is hard to maintain and he has developed the project with good look and richness but with easier maintenance. Mr. Glenn asked how many condensing units will be for each building. Mr. Springer stated there will be three in each building, screened and will be shown on the final site plan. Following a discussion on the landscaping, lighting, and overall building design, the DRB concurred there needs to be more enhanced landscaping for screening to individualize each building, color variation, more stonework and lighting. The DRB also suggested indivdualizing each building by shape and material. Chairperson Sorenson stated he would like to see how this particular projects fits into the PUD. Mr. Springer stated the scale of the site is misleading and if you see the full scale drawing it looks a lot different and it shows how each area relates to the whole. He suggests in the full scale drawing you can see the pedestrian amenities. He suggests when they come back to address the concerns of the DRB he will bring in the full scale plan. Design Review Board Minutes-October 24, 2000 2 He noted the shape of the site was already determined. He suggests it is very linear. Mr. Springer stated if you break up the parking the buildings just will not function. Mr. Springer stated he will look at changing the shape of the buildings, using different colors and more intensified landscaping. Mr. MacDonald stated he realized this is the first building in the PUD and wants to make it look nice but still keep the expense low. Mr. Springer stated they will take the concerns of the DRB and try to re-work the site and come back with another site plan and elevations for the DRB to look at and comment on in the next two weeks. • Due to the lack a quorum as several members left, the last project on the Agenda was reviewed as an Informal and was rescheduled for Thursday, October 26, 2000. B. Gibson Guitar MiSP/COA-#Z-00150 - (Skelton) 1894 Orville Way A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the existing temporary storage units and construct a 45`X 88'metal storage building and related site improvements. Beverley Christiansen and Eric Klotz joined the DRB. Senior Planner Dave Skelton presented the staff report, recommended conditions, and photos of the existing and surrounding buildings. He stated the applicants were in need of a metal, cold storage building with no plumbing for industrial purposes. Mr. Klotz proposed painting the new building either ivory or beige. He stated they would like to paint the existing building the same color. DRB members concurred that the buildings should not be the same color. Mr. Klotz then proposed either light stone or hickory moss be the color of the wainscot on the new building and the bands on the existing building. DRB members concurred windows should be added to the building. Mr. Klotz stated there will be purlins and three foot wide panels. DRB members concurred that since the property is adjacent to the 19`h Entryway Corridor, the landscaping should be upgraded. The members suggested 2 to 3 different clusters of bushes to serve as a transition from the existing building to the new building. The DRB members agreed that a variety in type and color of landscaping should be installed, and noted that the landscape plan is required to be prepared by a licensed nursery person. Mr. Klotz indicated on the plan where another proposed building will be placed in the future, and where landscaping is proposed. He explained the existing building needs to be expanded for increased production and the existing parking needs to be relocated. Design Review Board Minutes-October 24,2000 3 He indicated the property lines on a previously submitted plan and where they plan to place the new building and parking. Mr. Klotz stated they plan to double production and expand the building. Chairperson Sorenson suggested adding contrast to the building by adding architectural detail. He also suggested connecting the two buildings by adding an area for the employees. He noted the pedestrian entryway needs to be enhanced. Ms. Smith suggested a ranch style roof, noting North 19"'Avenue is leading to the foothills and she stated she feels that type of roof would blend the structure with its background. She also suggested using landscaping which is tall and close to the building. Mr. Klotz stated he will check into changing the roof line. Planner Skelton noted that he and Mr. Klotz will review the landscape guidelines for the North 19'h Entryway Corridor. Mr. Klotz noted the building will be built first and then they will add windows and a possible employee area, when finances allow. Chairperson Sorenson invited the applicants to return on Thursday, October 26, 2000, for formal review of the proposal before a quorum of DRB members. ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: There being no further business to come before the Design Review Board, Ms. Smith moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 5:48 p.m. 'k A Henry S enson, Chairperson Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-October 24, 2000 4 ATTENDANCE ROSTER OCTOBER 24, 2000 Those persons attending the Bozeman Design Review Board meeting are requested to sign the attendance roster. PLEASE PRINT neatly and Iegibly. NAME ADDRESS 1. do U J—e- 2. P-&-V C-0 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.