Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-2000 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice Chairperson Jim Raznoff called the meeting to order and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Jim Raznoff Henry Sorenson Karin Caroline, Assistance Planner Dick Pohl Dawn Smith Jami Morris, Assistant Planner Joanne Mannell Noel Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Bill Hanson Mel Howe Dan Glenn Visitors Present Jeff Kack Dave MacDonald Lowell Springer James Goehrung ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2000 (Not Available) 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 sq. ft. office buildings and related site improvements. (Coutinued from October 24, 2000) Lowell Springer and Dave MacDonald joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Karin Caroline presented the revised site plan, which incorporated the suggestions of the DRB at the last meeting. She noted the DRB needs to do a formal vote on the project as they are to make a recommendation to the City Commission. In response to Mr. Hanson on the formality of this review, Planner Caroline noted this is a formal review. Mr. Springer noted he appreciated the comments received from DRB members at the last meeting and he tried to incorporate them on the newly revised plans, which he placed on the table during the review. He discussed the modifications made on the revised plans, which he stated he will present to the City Commission at the hearing next week. Planner Caroline stated her recommended conditions relate to the revised plans submitted to staff October 31, which were Design Review Board Minutes-November 14,2000 1 sent to City Commission for the public hearing. Ms. Mannell Noel asked why the doorways were removed from the rear elevation on the newly revised plans. Dave MacDonald noted they were removed since no parking is allowed on Charlotte Street, there is no need for access from the street. Mr. Springer noted the dormers, without doorways beneath them, looked tacked-on; hence they are not shown either. With regard to the color scheme, Mr. MacDonald noted his concerns were the colors not be a hodgepodge, to have low maintenance facades, and to have continuity with the rest of the business park when it is completed. Mr. Hanson stated he liked the layout of the new site plan much better as it will sit on the land better. He asked if the number of parking stalls is the same, to which Mr. Springer stated it is the same and also about 11% above the code requirement. Mr. Hanson noted the landscaping has been increased. He stated the back elevation is a fairly plain facade and suggested more landscaping or roof modifications to break it up. Mr. Springer explained he worked with the roof form, but the modifications looked tacky. He concurred with the suggestion to add more landscaping. Mr. Pohl complimented the new plan, stating he had a concern with the parking lot adjacency to residential areas and the lack of adequate screening between them. He suggested installing a fence and a lilac hedge. He stated more extensive landscaping is needed along the stream corridor. Mr. MacDonald suggested planting junipers instead of lilacs for year around screening. Planner Caroline noted the developer, as a condition of the PUD, is required to install the landscaping along the stream corridor within a year of the PUD approval. Ms. Mannell Noel noted the plan is warmer and the buildings communicate. She concurred with the installation of fencing between the residences and the parking lot and the parking lot and the stream corridor. She was concerned with the long facade of building#3 with no relief. Mr. Glenn noted if the doorways are removed from the rear elevations,there is no necessity for moving the structures towards the street. He noted the current plan is good for the public within the structures, however he didn't feel the ideas come together as a whole. He suggested creating a pedestrian oriented courtyard with the parking lots on either side of the structures, thereby creating a formal relationship to the street. He stated the plan is in disorder and lacks clarity. Vice Chairperson Raznoff noted, though he didn't participate in the original discussion, he agrees with Mr. Glenn's idea of a formal courtyard. He noted, however,parking and setback requirements may be difficult to meet. Ms. Mannell Noel, responding to Mr. Glenn, stated that she looks at the plan as being Montana- style courtyards within the green space. She stated the new plan gives more volume and space. She stated the rear facades may not seem so long and unbroken with proper landscaping. Mr. Glenn noted different shapes and shorter buildings would be more appealing. Ms. MannelI Noel Design Review Board Minutes-November 14, 2000 2 noted it is not the purview of the DRB to redesign the building, but to comment on the plans as presented. Mr. Howe asked Planner Caroline if staff's conditions have been worked out with the applicant, to which Planner Caroline commented the conditions of DRC have been agreed upon by the applicant. She suggested that if landscaping needs to be added on the south and east buildings, and if a fence needs to be added, these can be added as conditions in the motion. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Pohl seconded, to recommend approval of Application#Z- 00149 as presented today, incorporating the suggestion that more landscaping be added along the south and east facades to break up the long rear facades,plus the conditions in the Staff Report. Mr. Pohl amended, Mr. Hanson seconded, the motion to include a privacy fence between the residential adjacency and parking lot. The amendment carried unanimously. The motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Glenn voting against it. B. Cape -France Headquarters MiSP/COA -#Z-00120 - (Caroline) 2020 Charlotte Street ilk A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct one 5,000 sq. ft. office building and related site improvements. Lowell Springer and Dave MacDonald joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Karin Caroline presented the application and reviewed the staff report and conditions. Mr. Pohl asked if DRC had approved the off-set driveway accesses across Stoneridge Drive. Planner Caroline noted they had no concerns with them. She noted the south end of the parking lot has been designed to link with the church parking lot, if and when it is expanded. In response to Mr. Hanson,Planner Caroline stated this application is for one structure on one lot. She also noted one monument sign plus wall signage will be allowed in accordance with the sign code. Mr. Glenn asked if the PUD defines how Stoneridge Drive will be developed as a pedestrian way. Planner Caroline noted the trail and pedestrian way will be located along the stream, within the stream setback as part of the linear corridor. She noted there is a theme for street lighting throughout the subdivision. In response to Vice Chairperson Raznoff, Planner Caroline noted the PUD guidelines call for cobblestone walkways. Mr. Springer presented the changes made to this plan in relation to the exposure to Durston Road and the adjacent open area following the DRB review of the project across the street two weeks ago. He noted they spent time creating an attractive rear elevation. He indicated the relief in the Design Review Board Minutes-November 14,2000 3 roof forms, and presented the color palette, noting it compliments the three buildings across the street. In response to Mr. Glenn's question for the future plans for the open area behind the building, Mr. Springer noted the area belongs to the church and he doesn't know their plans,however, church officials have indicated they want to keep the ball fields already located there. In response to Mr. Hanson's question on the benefits of the building's specific location on the lot, Mr. Springer explained the owner's wish to view the mountains and the creek from his office. He noted the owner's goal is to have several offices supported by one receptionist and a bookkeeper. He explained the two alternatives for linking the church's lot, this lot, and Charlotte Street. Mr. Hanson stated the creek is a real plus for this property and asked what the intent was for the creek corridor in conjunction with this project. Mr. Springer noted, since this a pedestrian oriented area, he felt the parking lot would be used by people using both the passive and active portions of the adjacent properties including the creek. In response to Mr. Hanson question on the minimal number of parking spaces, Mr. Springer noted the owner feels he doesn't need any more parking spaces. In response to Mr. Pohl's question on the location of the detention pond next to the stream corridor, Planner Caroline stated the location is permissible. Mr. Hanson commented he felt the building should be rotated so more parking stalls can be added. However, he noted, if the owner wants this orientation, that is his prerogative. He noted the parking along the creek is of some concern, however, there will be adequate landscaping along the creek,which along with the natural fall of the land, will screen it. He noted the landscaping needs to be enhanced. He suggested a great deal of care be taken in landscaping along the creek. In response to Mr. Glenn's question on the rotation of the building, Mr. Hanson displayed a suggested redesign. Mr. Springer noted Mr. Hanson's design almost mirrors Springer Group's first design. He noted the owner deemed the design as not acceptable. Mr. Pohl noted he is concerned with the offset of the two driveways as there will surely be through traffic. Mr. Springer noted the plans can be modified slightly to align the driveways. Mr. Pohl suggested adding more landscaping relative to the project. Mr. Glenn stated the whole PUD doesn't have a clear description of what the streetscape standards are. He noted he feels Stoneridge Drive is being treated as an arterial since the backs of the structures face it. He stated there is no clear overall vision as to what the public realm is or where the structures will be sited. He stated that in Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) there is clear definition of road and streetscapes. He noted the whole relationship is problematic. He suggested flipping the building and locating the parking next to it. Design Review Board Minutes-November 14,2000 4 Mr. Springer responded that Stoneridge Drive is designed for natural drainage into the stream. He noted the stream corridor has been designated for pedestrian use. Senior Planner Dave Skelton noted a variance was granted by the City Commission to allow a reduced front yard setback along the private streets. He noted the advisory boards felt Catron Creek should be a pedestrian way and not a vehicular way. Vice Chairperson Raznoff suggested there was an opportunity for a rear courtyard facing south. He concurred with Mr. Pohl's comment on the re-alignment of the driveways. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve application#Z-00120 with conditions as outlined by staff. Mr. Pohl amended, Ms. Mannell Noel seconded, the motion to encourage the addition of a condition to realign the driveway with Lots 3 and 4 to the north. The amendment carried unanimously. The motion carried 5-1,with Mr. Glenn voting against it. C. Simms Warehouse MiSP/COA -#Z-00151 - (Morris) 25 Evergreen Drive * A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of appropriateness to construct an 11,598 sq. ft. warehouse. Though Mr. Howe left the meeting, Vice Chairperson Raznoff declared there was a quorum. Jeff Kack joined the DR13. Assistant Planner Jami Morris presented the application, reviewed the staff report, and stated the one condition,which she noted has already been met. Mr. Hanson asked if Planner Morris wants comment on the roof form, which she affirmed. Planner Morris noted the lighting doesn't meet code, however, the shape of the fixture is appropriate if the bulb is shielded and doesn't extend below the fixture. Mr. Kack noted the lighting detail was an oversight on the plans and the lighting fixtures will match that in the existing development. In response to Mr. Pohl, Planner Morris noted some parking spaces could be removed and still meet the minimum requirements. Mr. Glenn asked why they have designed a domestic look to the buildings when they aren't located near residential areas. Mr. Kack noted with the adjacency to the interstate, they wanted to make an impressive statement, and he noted they plan to continue the berming and landscaping as was done on the other projects in the subdivision. Mr. Hanson asked why windows weren't added on the north side. Mr. Kack stated windows were installed on the south elevation for natural interior lighting and not on the north elevation for security reasons. He noted the structure is to be a shipping facility. Design Review Board Minutes-November 14,2000 5 Mr. Glenn commented that since it is a warehouse, he isn't too concerned with the proposed materials, except the building looks like a house. He stated he was surprised that an industrial design wasn't used. He suggested using industrial materials on the exterior. Mr. Kack noted this building fits the PUD guidelines and the City's guide for a pleasing view along the corridor. Mr. Glenn noted a metal roof would be easier to maintain than shingles. He suggested dropping the pitch of the roof also. Ms. Mannell Noel noted the change in height of the north roof pitch and its relationship with the rest of the roof was odd. Mr. Pohl stated he felt the building form is compatible with the other structures in the area. Mr. Hanson noted the mix of the metal and color loc siding are a concern. He stated metal should be used on a building of this scale. He suggested detailing the Dryvit on the north elevation similar to the south elevation. He noted the structure fits well with the rest of the neighborhood. Vice Chairperson Raznoff noted the structure blends well with the rest of the neighborhood. He noted the north elevation is not being viewed by the public to the north, therefore, may not need much detail. He stated the south elevation is well designed. Though he suggested using more industrial type materials, he noted he is in favor of approving this site plan. MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Ms. Mannell Noel seconded, to approve application #Z-00151as recommended by Staff. The motion carried unanimously. D. City Storage COA/Further Development -#Z-00144 - (Morris) 1.812 North Rouse Avenue �k A Certificate of Appropriateness/Further Development Application for the construction of a 9,760 sq. ft. pole-barn style storage shed and related site improvements. James Goehrung joined the DR13. Assistant Planner Jami Morris presented the staff report. In response to Mr. Pohl, Mr. Goehrung indicated the location of the east property line. Mr. Pohl asked if the location of the structure has changed from the location on the first approval and why the location was changed. Mr. Goehrung noted the location was changed as the current structures don't meet the needs of the various divisions in the City. He noted the use will be mostly for vehicular storage. Vice Chairperson Raznoff asked if there will be one or two driveway connections on Rouse. Mr. Goehrung noted one access is proposed. He stated "the bump" out on the rear of the building will have a shed style form. Design Review Board Minutes-November 14,2000 6 Discussion followed on the proposed natural lighting, with the Board concurring it is a great idea. Mr. Pohl stated he had concerns that the amount of landscaping proposed doesn't meet the requirements for a buffer along Rouse Avenue. Planner Morris noted condition#2 somewhat addresses the landscaping requirements. The Board discussed the surfacing materials, the land uses of the surrounding properties, and landscaping. The consensus was the gravel surfacing material is appropriate, a gas line lies to the north, and mixed tree species should be planted- especially mixed evergreens and shorter deciduous trees. Mr. Goehrung noted his concern with security if too much landscaping is installed. Discussion followed on the relief feature on the west side of the building. The consensus was the relief west elevation feature should be located at the rear of the structure on the east side of the building and extra landscaping should be added to break up the long front facade on the west elevation. Mr. Pohl stated he would like to review the landscaping plan. Planner Morris noted the previous condition was for ADR staff to review it,however, he was welcome to review it in the Office of Planning and Community Development. MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved,Vice Chairperson Raznoff seconded,to recommend approval of application #Z-00144 with the removal of the shed on the west elevation. Mr. Pohl asked if the strip of land on the west side of the building could be restored as green space, creating a plus along Rouse Avenue. Vice Chairperson Raznoff noted the intent of the DRB is not to move the structure nearer to the street. Mr. Goehrung noted he is trying to avoid shuttling vehicles inside the building to get the one that is needed. He noted the"bump out"would give them more flexibility. Mr. Glenn suggested putting the"bump out" on the rear of the building, stating others will try to get by with less design and or landscaping if the City doesn't follow its own guidelines. Mr. Pohl suggested landscaping would help make the building disappear. Mr. Glenn withdrew his motion and Vice Chairperson Raznoff withdrew his second. MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved, Ms. Mannell Noel seconded,to recommend approval of application#Z-00144 with the front protrusion being flipped to the rear facade and landscaping installed to break up the front facade. The motion carried unanimously. ITEM 4. DISCUSSION ITEM A. GUIDELINE FOR FOLLOWING ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER The consensus of the Board was to continue this item until the Chairperson's return. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT Design Review Board Minutes-November 14,2000 7 There being no furth r b iness to come before the Board,the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. in ]Raznoff, Vice arson Design--Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-November 14,2000 ATTENDANCE ROSTER NOVEMBER 14, 2000 Those persons attending the City of Bozeman Design Review Board meetings are requested to sign the attendance roster. PLEASE PRINT neatly and legibly. NAME ADDRESS 1. 2. `D� 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.