Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-01-2001 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY,MAY 1, 2001 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Acting Chairperson,Jim Raznoff, called meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and the secretary recorded the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Dawn Smith Henry Sorenson Jami Morris, Assistant Planner Melvin Howe Bill Hanson Jeff Monroe,Assistant Planner Jim Raznoff Dan Glenn Karin Caroline, Assistant Planner Dick Pohl Jennifer Willems,Recording Secretary Joanne Noel Visitors Present Gene Graf Bob Bushing Bill Ogle Dick Shanahan Chris Budeski Karen Ward Jim Ullman Per Hjalmarsson Steve Kirchhoff Lou Ann Wallin Jeane Wedglow ITEM 2. PROJECT REVIEW A. Bozeman Ford MaSP/COA-#Z-01037 - (Morris) North 19"'Avenue,North of Deadman's Gulch �1K A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 53,500 sf auto dealership with a quick lube facility attached. Don Stueck, Bob Bushing, and Lou Ann Wallin,joined the DRB. Assistant Planner, Jami Morris, presented the project and reviewed the staff report, noting the conclusion and recommendations of staff based on ADR comments. Planner Morris stated it was up to the Board to determine whether or not the mentioned recommendations,based on the guidelines, are acceptable. Design Review Board Minutes-May 1,2001 1 Questions of Staff: Ms. Noel asked why the staff report read"Internal clusters of vegetation account for almost 10% of the parking area". Planner Morris replied it was staffs belief the applicant could accomplish the 10%by adding the additional landscaping to the display area recommended in condition#1. Mr. Howe, Ms.Noel, and Mr. Raznoff had no questions of staff. Mr. Don Stueck asked for consideration on ADR recommendations 1-3, noting he agreed with all other recommendations. He explained that during the preliminary review a big concern was the linear nature of the display area parking along 19'"Avenue. Mr. Stueck stated"Code does not require landscaped islands in the display area". He mentioned in the beginning they had added individual islands at the end of the display area because of the sea of asphalt. He stated since they have already added some landscape islands with trees,they would like consideration to not have to add more. Mr. Stueck was concerned with snow removal from the display area. All of the cars would have to be moved, so snow could be plowed and then the cars would have to be moved back. He stated any kind of island or obstruction just adds more time and work. Mr. Bushing reviewed the car display area on the plan. He noted by interdispersing the landscape islands the site becomes some what linear. Mr. Stueck stated the second objection to ADR recommendations was the continuation of the 3' wainscot around the entire building. The applicant tried to give the same look with two tone colored paint going around the concrete panel. Mr. Stueck stated the purpose identified with the location of the rock on the front facing 19', is the rock is located underneath overhangs or canopies, which leaves a different surface. He stated there is a cost factor to run rock all the way around the building. He suggested the roof has eves to make it more presentable to Semmintal Way and to Interstate 90. Mr. Stueck stated by adding the 3'cultured stone onto the surface is money wasted. He suggested they can accomplish the look ADR is after by using paint. Mr. Stueck suggested the purpose ADR is trying to create is the interstate look and he feels they have accomplished this with the eves and canopies. Mr. Stueck stated the third objection to ADR recommendations,noted in the staff report, "You shall install a monument sign",when the code states nothing of"having to" install a monument sign. He showed the Board a model of a pole sign which would meet height restrictions,noting they are pushing the owner to have a monument sign made, but feels the owner should at least have the option to choose the type of sign. Mr. Bushing then requested a 20% increase to the sign limitations outlined in the sign code for entryway overlay districts. Planner Morris stated the ADR comments are based on the Design Objectives Plan, noting it is suppose to be used in the entryway corridors to fulfill requirements above and beyond what the Zoning Ordinance requires. Mr. Stueck stated they have tried to comply with the DOP and the Zoning Ordinance from the start. Design Review Board Minutes-May 1,2001 2 Questions of Staff: Mr. Pohl asked if the color and material above the river rock in the front is the same all the way around. Mr. Bushing stated the material above the rock is dryvit and the color would be a light buff which would coordinate with the dryvit. Mr. Pohl stated the river rock would rovide a unifying element. Mr. Bushing stated the change of materials and the canopy height does match the blue on the building to maintain the same element. Mr. Stueck stated they will use EIFS and suggested river rock all around the smooth face will not look good in 2 years. He stated people will bump into it making the surface look bad. Mr. Pohl had concerns with the circulation and the entrance to the east along Simmental Way. He stated the role of the entry is not apparent,but rather than coming into the parking lot,the building is directly obstructing the continuous drive aisle. Mr. Pohl asked if there is something to force the circulation. Mr. Stueck suggested the loading dock is the transition point and where the precast begins and the rock stops. He stated this is the exit area and not the entrance,noting even if traffic is coming off of North 7`h there will be traffic entering from the south and may use this entrance. He suggested if this is the case there would be the option for traffic to go either way. Mr. Stueck stated coming into the lube area,traffic will exit by way of the Simmental access and suggested this is the main reason for the access. Mr. Bushing stated this was already a designated access. He stated they tried to pick the middle of the building because of the heavy flow of traffic to include semi's. Mr. Pohl suggested if the entrance had been shifted to line up as a driving isle, it would have made a much better flow for circulation. Mr. Stueck stated there will be a future left turn by MDOT, and suggested the only reason it is not right now is because the traffic speed limit is too fast. He stated there will be a left turn put in and the speed limit will be slowed to 40-45 miles per hour. Mr. Bushing suggested the signalization of Dead Man's Gulch will lower the speed limit. Mr. Pohl likes stated he is pleased to see the increase in the landscape in the entryway. Mr. Stueck showed where the pylon sign will be located on the plan. Mrs. Noel asked about the eastern elevation and if the applicant is objecting to having the river rock in this location. Mr. Stueck stated they object to the rock going all the way around the building. He stated they have tried to make the back of the building presentable to the interstate, but it is the back of the building. He feels the owner has gone above and beyond to make the look of the building presentable from the highway without adding extra expense. Ms. Noel stated the texture of the facade would be. Mr. Howe, Ms. Smith and Mr. Raznoff had no questions. Design Review Board Minutes-May 1,2001 3 Discussion: Mr. Pohl stated he is pleased with the direction the project has taken. He stated improvements such as the feel of entry, landscaping and the serpentine flow of traffic as it comes in has been addressed. Mr. Pohl suggested wainscot would be a good element to add but does not feel it would make a big impact from the interstate view and stated 3 feet is not very high to start with and he does not feel it is that critical with this side of the building. Mr. Pohl liked the fact the retention basins have been naturalized and stated the basins enhance the project a great deal. He stated he would still like to see more tree planting in the display area and would argue trees would enhance the display. Ms. Noel noted she was not in attendance for the Informal Review,but feels strongly about staffs conditions and feels the articulation is important even if it is only three feet. She stated the articulation would make the entire building tie together and create more unity making the eastern facade more appealing. She stated asphalt should be made more appealing to pedestrians by softening it with more interior landscaping. Ms. Noel concurred with Mr. Pohl's suggestion of adding more trees to the display area. She feels the architecture has variety and aside from the articulation, looks good. Mr. Howe asked how recommended condition#6 works. Planner Dave Skelton the idea is to not put to much emphasis on the trail and not to detract from the corridor. Mr. Stueck stated they will definitely will have to berm, because they will have a lot of top soil to move. Planner Morris stated based on the wording in the guidelines, hedges or berming should be used to minimize the impact of the parking area. Ms. Smith is in favor of the application and supports staffs recommendation. Acting Chairperson, Jim Raznoff, liked what was presented. He stated the applicant has presented some argument on three of the conditions staff has recommended. He stated he liked the recommendations and the applicant has presented practical considerations on the river rock. Mr. Raznoff suggested he is concerned with the maintenance of the building and would not have a problem with the 2'd consideration presented by the applicant, not extending river rock vaneer around the perimeter of the building. He supports the remainder of the recommendations as presented by staff. Mr. Pohl asked about the lighting and how intense would the effect be on the site. Mr. Bushing stated the lighting is less than the lighting at Billion Plaza. Planner Morris noted the applicant has used the forward throw lights along 191h. Mr. Bushing stated they are at 23 foot candles at a maximum. He suggested the lot across the street from the current Bozeman Ford is at 22 and the other was above 30 foot candles. Mr. Bushing stated there is a lot of lights for a more uniform appearance,which is part of the concern by the owner due to energy use. Mr. Bushing stated they will conserve energy by shutting off some of the lights at certain times of the day. Design Review Board Minutes-May 1,2001 4 He stated the light fixtures have cuffs and the wall fixtures look exactly the saine, noting the pole height is at 20'maximum to the top of the fixture. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Ms. Smith seconded,to send to City Commission with the recommended conditions as listed in the staff report, Ws 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, leaving out#2. Motion carried 4-1, with Ms. Noel opposing. B. Ponderosa Land MaSP/COA-#Z-01040 - (Caroline) 1101 Pear Street A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct an outside storage area for materials and lumber and related site improvements. Per Hjalmarsson, Rick Ogle, and Bill Ogle joined the DRB. Planner Caroline presented the project and reviewed the staff report. She stated what is being proposed is a 6' chain link fence which will go around the property will subsequent landscaping, caragana hedge between the fence and the trail. She noted there will be boulevard trees and some turf sod along L Street. Planner Caroline reviewed previous Informal DRB comments regarding the proposed chain link fence, stating comments made were to try and set the fence back away from the trail up to 10-12 feet from the property line, which is currently 5. She stated the DRB wanted to see access taken to the property from Pear Street rather than from L Street. The proposal shows two access points regarding additional landscaping along L Street which has been proposed with the boulevard trees. She stated the DRB report rather simple,reminding the DRB the proposal is for a storage area with a 6' chain link fence with screening in the northwest area to include landscaping along L Street. Ms. Smith asked if the proposed hedge on the trail plan was at actual planting height. Planner Caroline suggested the hedge shown is mature and not what the hedge will look at planting,but in about 6 years the tree will start to mature and will be 10-15 feet in height and will need to be maintained. She stated it is a conceptual plan showing where the hedge, and fence may be in relationship to the trail, and the property line,noting there is currently no fence between the trail and rail operations, since the Spur Line is not active. Ms. Smith asked if there is sprinkling for the landscaping. Planner Caroline replied the plan shows where sprinkler hookups would be. She stated the applicant may choose to hook up a drip irrigation system or use hoses. Planner Caroline reviewed what is taken into consideration when requesting a permanent irrigation system, and what is proposed meets the permanent irrigation system requirements. Design Review Board Minutes-May 1,2001 5 Mr. Howe had no questions. Ms. Noel asked where the hedge stopped and how far the fence was from the trail. Planner Caroline replied the fence is approximately 80-90 feet from the trail in the southern portion of the property and closer to the northwest. Ms. Noel asked if there was a sidewalk on Pear Street. Planner Caroline replied that it is just a dedicated street. She stated the last sidewalk is at the intersection of Wallace and Tamarack Streets. Mr. Pohl asked if building materials will be the product stored on site. Planner Caroline replied, that was correct. Mr. Pohl asked if there was any discussion about making the fence a visual barrier, opposed as for security. Planner Caroline replied the applicant was going to use a slated fence, but not along Pear Street. Mr. Bill Ogle stated the fence slats are plastic material and will be a visual barrier, except along Pear Street, where the hedge is, and a small portion along L Street. Mr. Rick Ogle stated the slates will be an earthy tone; forest green was suggested. Mr. Pohl asked about the fence which is shown on the graphic. He asked if there was any plan to do a fence and what its purpose would serve. Planner Caroline replied, the fence would be a requirement, if the railway were to become active. Mr. Pohl asked why we are looking at this project. Planner Caroline replied the project is a major site plan within the I-90 corridor, which are reviewed by the DRB. Mr. Raznoff asked if the existing proposal would affect any change to the configuration of the trail system itself. Planner Caroline replied, "no". Mr. Hjalmarsson stated the entire yard is not paved and is gravel. Planner Caroline stated the applicant will be providing a drainage ditch for drainage, along L Street. Mr. Raznoff stated Caragana hedge will require a lot of maintenance when mature and noted the mature hedge could possibly infringe on the trail and would like to see the hedge maintained. Mr. Rick Ogle commented on installing a hedge close to the trail,noting there are transient people who live there during the summer;he suggested any planting could be detrimental and police may not be able to see with landscaping. MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Mrs. Noel seconded, to approval the project as presented. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. Design Review Board Minutes-May 1,2001 6 C. Johnny Carino's CUP/COA-#Z-01046- (Monroe) North 19"'and Valley Center Road A Conditional Use Permit Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 8,500 S.F. building for a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages and related site improvements. Karen Ward, Chris Budeski, Doug Shananhan, and Gene Graf joined the DRB. Planner Monroe presented the plan and reviewed the conditions as listed on the staff report. He stated Chris, with Allied Engineering has already made changes on the parking and on the interior landscaping. Planner Monroe stated as far as the setbacks and landscape, they are in compliance with code. He stated the staff report contained boiler plate recommendations and the last condition was pending on conditions set forth by the DRB which would westernize or localize the architecture going off of the DOP and guidelines set forth by Gallatin Center. Planner Monroe stated the project uses a lot of the materials which are stated in the guidelines. Questions of Staff: Ms. Smith asked if the present location of the building on the plan is the most appropriate and if it satisfies the DOP for the North 19`h Avenue Entryway Corridor with the location of the front facade and the outdoor seating area. Planner Monroe explained the lot orientation and noted the Valley Center Road access is out of the City's jurisdiction. He explained the bank partially blocks the site and stated the front elevations and outdoor seating would be seen from North 19'h Avenue. Planner Monroe suggested they appear to have a reasonable access. Ms. Smith asked about parking spaces and Planner Monroe replied the applicant has met setbacks and the required amount of parking. Ms. Smith asked about Planner Monroe's comment stated in the staff report about a tenant information sign. Planner Monroe stated there is a sign guideline for Gallatin Center,noting there is a proposed monument sign. Ms. Smith asked how many signs will be on the building itself. Planner Monroe replied there will be 2 signs, one in front and one in back, which are within the square footage for signs. Mr. Howe and Mrs. Noel had no questions of staff. Mr. Pohl asked about vehicular circulation and stated he does not have a clear picture of the circulation around the bank. He asked about the drive-thru, and stated he is concerned about the connection with the drive. Mr. Pohl stated for safety purposes, typically what's seen is as many right angle connections as possible,noting an acute angle can present problems. Mr. Cook stated the drive gives a connection. Mr. Budeski suggested having a stop sign implemented at this intersection. Design Review Board Minutes-May 1,2001 7 Mr. Pohl asked if the entrance off of Valley Center Road was part of the PUD. Mr. Cook stated per MDOT,the entrance is right in and right out not shown on the plan. He stated this entrance will not be the main entrance. Mr. Cook stated Valley Center Road can not exit if traffic is going west and asked if a stop sign would be a significant approach in resolving the issue. Mr. Pohl stated the intersection presents confusion, and suggested it is not well organized. Mr. Budeski stated they are trying to make internal connections between the bank and intersections. He noted parking is premium on site. Planner Monroe stated on the original proposal the applicant was short eight parking spaces and a couple of handicapped stalls. He stated the applicant is basically right at the required amount of parking spaces, noting the calculation was based on the square footage, which leaves the site with 103 parking spaces plus 5 handicapped spaces. Ms. Smith asked if the PUD addressed shared parking. Mr. Cook stated they have parking agreements and each building has to provide a portion of the shared parking. Senior Planner Dave Skelton stated there is no on street parking, and there were not any provisions for overflow for on street parking. Mr. Pohl suggested by making the pedestrian connection the applicant would not have to accommodate all of the parking stalls on site. Mr. Budeski stated they meet the minimum requirements for parking and are not asking for any excess for parking. Mr. Shanahan stated the building has similar characteristic and materials which are compatible and mentioned in the PUD. He suggested the building has a"Northern Italian Flare", which the applicant wanted. Mr. Shanahan presented the Board with pictures of the lighting. He stated the lights are more like a globe and the lanterns do not pollute. Mr. Shanahan stated because the building is so visible from all sides, they have added a tower to the rear of the building. He stated the yard area will be enclosed with a combination of stone and dryvit, compatible with the rest of the materials. Mr. Shanahan stated the outdoor area will have a screened in patio. He stated the lanterns are small and the wall mounted lights are for the sign only and they shine on the sign. Senior Planner Skelton asked what the illumination is. Mr. Shanahan stated the small lights are 75 watts and are amber. Planner Skelton stated the lights will be reviewed by the City Commission. Mr. Cook stated there are down lighting underneath the eve. Mr. Shanahan stated down lighting highlights the stone at night. Mr. Budeski stated this project is the only one of it's kind in the area. The applicant presented the Board with a color pallet and examples of materials. Mr. Raznoff asked bout the taller portion of the building and where it is located. Mr. Shanahan stated this portion is facing SW.noting the roof forms are compatible with the proposal for lot 10. He stated the building does not really have a front and a back and they want pedestrians to see the stone from the highway. Mr. Pohl suggested having more evergreen trees for a sense of region. Mr. Cook stated Shelly at Cashman's Nursery has tied the landscaping in with what already exits on existing lots. Design Review Board Minutes-May 1,2001 8 Ms. Noel stated it is hard to westernize this site,given the North Italian theme. Mr. Howe stated he liked the false window relief,but would change the top portion of the building. Mr. Shanahan stated it is an articulation. Mr. Howe suggested he likes the elevation of the mass and would like to see a glass window where the false structure is. Ms.Noel suggested a false window relief with closed shutters,where the false structure is. Mr. Howe stated the tower is too obtrusive,he suggested lowering the tower. Mr. Shanahan stated the tower is a mass to catch peoples attention but doesn't feel it is obtrusive. He suggested lowering the tower but keeping the roof the same height. MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded, to approve the project as presented with the added condition of traffic control at the intersection off of Burke Street connecting with the bank,be resolved with either a stop sign or reconfiguring circulation somehow, altering the front and west facade so the upper detail may be altered to include a configuration of false shutters and a front arch window. Motion carried 4-1 with Ms. Smith opposing. ITEM 3. ADJOURNMENT Ms.Noel moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 5:15. Jim R noff, Acting Vha* esi Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-May 1,2001 9 ATTENDANCE ROSTER MAY 1, 2001 Those persons attending the Bozeman Design Review Board meeting are requested to sign the attendance roster. PLEASE PRINT neatly and legibly. NAME ADDRESS 2.4. 3. v� 5. o7 6. (A Qt- I� 32 �ISc vV(=✓� y �� i mac-' 7. 8.9. 10. 11. UL0 c—AIL 12. IA') 11 � TSL 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.