Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-12-2001 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2001 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Henry Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and the Secretary recorded the attendance. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Jim Raznoff Bill Hanson Karin Caroline,Assistant Planner Dan Glenn Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Melvin Howe Jami Morris,Assistant Planner Dawn Smith Joanne Noel Dick Pohl Henry Sorenson ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MAY 8Tx & MAY 22"a,2001 Chairperson Henry Sorenson asked for corrections to the minutes of May 8, 2001. Hearing none he called for a motion. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Glenn seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Cowdrey Towers MaSP/COA/DEV-#Z-01068 - (Caroline) 202 West Main Street �k A Major Site Plan Application and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations to construct a new 5-story building and related site improvements. Chairperson Sorenson informed the DRB there were new developments in regards to Cowdrey Towers. Planner Skelton introduced the project and reviewed conditions as stated in the Staff Report. He noted DRC had identified items which still needed to be addressed in light of changes to the layout of the project. Planner Skelton concurred with Mr. Springer that it was more appropriate for the DRB to discuss the proposal in the context of an Informal Review in light of the potential significant changes to the parking layout, items pointed out by former Historic Preservation Officer, Derek Strahn, and items in which Mr. Springer would like to discuss. 1 Design Review Board Minutes-June 12,2001 Planner Skelton stated he knew the DRB Board Members had not had an opportunity to review Planner Strahn's comments,noting the project had been tabled on the City Commission Agenda, so the DRB had an opportunity to review the project on an Informal Review level. Mr. Springer stated he would like an opportunity to explain items which he talked about earlier in the day with Planning Director,Andrew Epple. He stated there was an issue with storm water retention,noting that, "unfortunately it was just one of those things, the gentleman who did the review for the engineers did not talk with all of the people on his own staff'. Mr. Springer explained what Mr. Hixson had stated, "I can't help but over hearing what your saying,but the senior engineers disagree and say that you don't need to the things that the younger engineer has requested, you are in a high density-urban environment and the norm and the excepted policy there is to not increase and if possible lessen,to sum degree,the amount of run off that exists historically". He stated Mr. Epple and Mr. Hixson both agreed storm water retention should not have been an issue because the applicant had reduced the run off from what currently existed. Mr. Springer stated there was an issue which came up in reference to parking. He stated that he had interpreted the parking ordinance to say that the parking length of a space should be 18',if it is to the curb on the inside of the space,but stated now they are going to need to show the entire 20' inside the curb instead. Mr. Springer stated they were willing to work with that. He stated they may end up with 6' or 7'more landscaping between parking,possibly eliminating parking on the back side, and pay cash in lieu of the parking. Mr. Springer stated he was not in favor of cash in lieu of parking at first, but stated"there is a real effort being made with the cash in lieu of parking money,to create some parking downtown". He agreed cash in lieu is now a reality. Mr. Springer stated the comments made by the DRC were valid and he stated they will address those. Mr. Springer stated that Derek Strahn was a good man whom he liked very much, but had strong disagreement with comments made in his letter. He stated he believed they had responded to all of the items that had been brought up. He noted they have changed the height, taken out stories, eliminated a number of units, decreased the amount of parking, and increased the amount of landscaping, stating these were largely the issues brought up by Planner Strahn in his letter,which did not have to do with design. Mr. Springer stated from a design point of view,his company is in a very qualified position to disagree. Mr. Springer presented a scale model of Cowdrey Towers to compare the existing buildings. He reviewed the presentation and explained the landscaping and building location compared to the Church and related streets. 2 Design Review Board Minutes-June 12,2001 Chairperson Sorenson asked Mr. Springer if he wanted the DRB to review the project as an Informal Review. Mr. Springer stated he would like the DRB to review the project as an Informal Review this meeting and then present the project as a Review Item so the DRB could see the improvements. Mr. Springer refereed to the letter written by Planner Strahn,noting some of the items he did not agree with. He noted he was surprised Planner Strahn did not note any of the improvements made on the project thus far. Mr. Springer stated that he respectively disagreed with Planner Strahn's evaluation and his design comments. Chairperson Sorenson noted the DRB had not had a chance to read the letter written by Planner Strahn and would be able to comment more about it at the next DRB meeting. Planner Skelton asked Mr. Springer if anything had ever developed with the Catholic Church in reference to shared parking on their lot. Mr. Springer stated they have worked with Father Bob, noting there was potential to work with the Church,but the decision making authority of the Church was not Father Bob and the idea would take a long time to get approved. Mr. Springer stated they would like to pursue the idea but could not wait on the project while the Church evaluated the decision. He stated the parking garage had a lot of merit and would have been good for Bozeman and noted they will continue to pursue the idea. Mr. Raznoff asked to have Planner Skelton or Mr. Springer characterize the purpose of the underground parking area, and if they could foresee the parking area needing a requirement for tenants only or for public use as well. Mr. Springer stated they believe the tenants will be at least 50 years of age and have only one vehicle,which will have a space provided for it and parking for the officers and the employees of the bank. He stated there will be a heated slab and an elevator for convenient use. Mr. Springer stated the building needed two levels to fulfill requirements but was not meant for public use. Mr. Raznoff stated he had reviewed previous DRC minutes and looked at the issues which were brought up at that meeting. He suggested the intersection of the underground parking was too close to the intersection of Babcock and Grand Avenue by 20'. He suggested the 100'separation requirement was not being met between the intersections. Mr. Raznoff stated West Babcock is one way. He stated the concern of meeting the requirement was not there. Mr. Raznoff stated his reaction to the general design improvements since the last presentation, responded to previous comments in terms of scale, massing, design articulation of the various secondary facade, the use of materials and looked upon the applicants response as favorable. He noted he was generally impressed with the improvements. 3 Design Review Board Minutes-June 12,2001 Ms. Smith concurred she liked the materials and the details to the exterior of the building. She stated the effect when you first look at the building was that the first floor looked larger and she had concerns with the mass and the height of the building in relationship to the surrounding buildings. Mr. Springer explained the variance from the top of the chimney to Ms. Smith. She stated there was a lot of weight at the top of the building. Mr. Smith did not support the drive-thru, she stated it was contradictory to what was wanted down town. Mr. Springer stated the use of the bank would hopefully be 80%walking customers and suggested after hour users will need the drive-thru. Mr. Pohl concurred,the building had come a long way and he was impressed with building materials and detailing. He stated he was perplexed with the vehicular circulation in the parking garage area and the drive-thru. Mr. Pohl stated the parking bay to the west would increase the distance to the entrance into the parking lot but would give up a lot of parking. Mr. Springer noted they are right on for parking. Mr. Pohl asked if walk in customer's for the bank would come in from the street. Mr. Springer stated a lot of people will walk instead of drive. He stated the hours will be made aware to the customers, suggesting the drive-thru would be made available after 5:00 p.m. Mr.Pohl stated the clock visibility was not useful on the north face and suggested the position come from the east side of the building, making it more visible from Main Street. He does like the tower. Mr. Springer stated the building which used to be west one block had a tower,the old high school. He stated he had knowledge of plans for another building coming into town which would make sense in having the clock tower positioned where it is. Mr. Pohl stated the difference with the old tower was that the old tower had not been located as high. Mr. Pohl stated he would reserve comments on parking until the next meeting. Chairperson Sorenson stated staff s comments were fairly easily taken care of. He stated condition#4 and#5 affect the architecture in a significant way. He stated there had been a lot of effort put into changing the materials. Chairperson Sorenson suggested the drive-thru had a heavy mass over an open area and aesthetically it was out of character with the rest of the building. He disagreed with Mr. Pohl about the clock tower position and felt the location was fine. Chairperson Sorenson stated in the presentation, Mr. Springer tried to give the sense of blending of historical character,but also good design. He explained how he would like to have the two keystone elements eliminated;noting he felt the clock would have greater strength without the roof structure. Chairperson Sorenson explained how he would give the bays a sense of transparency. Mr. Springer stated the eastern exposure is enhanced all the way up, noting he would think about doing the same on the front facade. Chairperson Sorenson explained he felt uncomfortable with the balconies and suggested the coins on the corners give the building a touch of historic feeling, but suggested having brackets underneath for support and character. 4 Design Review Board Minutes-June 12,2001 Mr. Springer stated he wanted the feel of rod iron decks but stated it was not practical. He suggested having a deck with tile to make it feel lighter, a fire escape feel. Mr. Springer stated the owner wanted the decks because he liked the feel that opening the French doors gave. Ms. Noel liked the improvements as well,noting her concern was the scale and massing. Mr. Springer stated the part seen from the street is 52'in height and suggested surrounding buildings were taller. Ms. Noel stated the building seemed top heavy and too massive for the site. She stated the comments about the roof elements and the balconies take away from the heaviness. She would eliminate the roof elements and have the central element stand alone. Ms.Noel concurred with Chairperson Sorenson's ideas about the balconies. Ms. Noel asked if the applicant would break up the west facade. Mr. Springer stated there were huge trees and you would need to be approximately 40' away from the building to see the facade and by that time you are past it. He stated there are lilacs and buck thorns to the rear. Ms. Noel stated concerns with the circulation and the drive-thru. Chairperson Sorenson stated the improvements and the video were good,noting he was pleased to see the application and felt positive about it. Mr. Glenn stated the architecture with the balconies was a big issue, stating the concerns; 1) in the relationship with the character of Main Street. He suggested there was very little which protruded from the buildings downtown now. He suggested being careful how the applicant balanced the historical expression and reinforced concrete element. 2)Make the balconies lighter or go to more of a French balcony. He stated a 5'balcony would be used and there would be storage which would not look nice from Main Street. He suggested on the south side balconies could protrude out. Mr. Glenn stated the balconies on the lower level should be eliminated. Mr. Springer stated they wanted functionally to try to allow everyone to have the same functional quality. He stated he would talk to the owner about the lower balconies. Mr. Glenn suggested pulling the doors together as a single French door. He stated the east elevation had vastly improved but noted he did like the large glass expanse. Mr. Springer stated it was a stairway. Mr. Glenn suggested it goes against history. Mr. Springer stated he disagreed and suggested this type of idea had been presented. Mr. Glenn stated overall, there was a punched building and felt the glass expanse was a contradictory feature. Mr. Springer stated maybe they could look at incorporating it on the west elevation as well. Mr. Glenn stated the inserted elements should be duplicated. He stated the 55'height limit was a problem downtown. He suggested if Bozeman keeps growing then we need to think about changing the height limitations. Mr. Glenn stated a factor is how surrounding buildings relate to each other. He stated he did not feel a pitched roof was a proper element. He stated generally speaking down town had a flat roofed expression. Mr. Glenn stated a concern was the project still had a very large parking lot. 5 Design Review Board Minutes-June 12,2001 He suggested the feeling was like a wide billboard on the street. Mr. Glenn suggested a parking lot was not open space and would destroy the pedestrian nature of the street. Mr. Springer disagreed. He stated active retail on a side street could cause deterioration of downtown Main Street. There was discussion on developing streetscape and parking. The DRB members concurred about the parking lot and the idea of introducing a meandering sidewalk. Mr. Pohl suggested it is a slopped parking lot which goes into a pit. Mr. Springer stated the parking ramp and garage would not be very visible. Chairperson Sorenson disagreed with Mr. Springer and suggested stated parking lots are a no man's land. He stated in relation to a pedestrian scale,maybe you could see better from the parking lot to downtown and aesthetically it would be dedicated to the automobile and not pedestrians. Ms. Noel stated the opposite side of the street was parking. Mr. Springer stated if you visualize the corner pedestrianalized and landscaped it would seem more logical. He stated there will be a pedestrian park eventually, suggesting it is just a pedestrian friendly space to walk through. Mr. Howe stated it would be nice to have streetscape and not automobiles but felt it was too early to dictate what an arch would do with required parking and suggested the parking was there to fill required code. He did not feel it was right that the DRB dictate what a person did with his land. Mr. Raznoff suggested taking the upper floor of the building,perhaps the arch, and push the bedrooms and bathrooms a step back to the corners,to relieve the heaviness of the building. Ms. Smith suggested eliminating the balconies and finding outdoor space on the roof by using a flat roof or a lower roof which would provide an outdoor living space downtown. Mr. Pohl was conflicted about the parking issue. He stated there was no way to get away with eliminating the parking. He suggested we all use parking lots and stated it is a conflict to eliminate parking. Mr. Glenn asked if Mr. Springer looked at the possibility of underground parking. Mr. Springer stated the soil was difficult at 15'. Planner Skelton tabled the project and suggested the DRB keep there information on the project to review for the next meeting. Mr. Springer extended his thanks to the Board. 6 Design Review Board Minutes-June 12,2001 B. Oakwood Office Center MaSP/COA -#Z-01055 - (Monroe) 251 Edelweiss Drive �k A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to develop 23,662 sf into 5 office buildings, one two-story and four one-story structures. Mr. Lowell Springer, Mr. Steve Parks, and Mr. Jesse Sobrepena joined the DRB. Planner Monroe presented the application and stated the project had come before the DRB before as Mahar Office Complex. He reviewed the staff report. He stated there had been some public comment introduced. He stated the PUD for Festival Square was applicable and had to be followed. He stated all other issues had been addressed. Mr. Raznoff asked what was different from the Informal Review. Planner Monroe explained the changes from the informal and reviewed the plan. He stated there was a drive easement which was addressed and the elevations were similar to the informal. He noted exceptions. Mr. Springer stated the reason for the change was because of conflict with the deed. Mr. Raznoff asked about the lighting standards. He asked if the lights were in compliance with code. Planner Monroe stated the maximum was 20' and that was what the applicant was at. Ms. Smith asked about the joint access easement and if it will realistically be used by someone other than the employees. Mr. Springer explained how the building from Perkins would front. Ms. Smith asked if there would be a hallway. Mr. Springer suggested that would depend on tenant improvements. Mr. Sobrepena stated the elevations had been developed further than what had been presented. Mr. Springer stated nothing but the approach to the site had changed. He stated when you look at the whole site it works together. He stated the access is defined well and the width of the site determined where the parking was located. Mr. Springer stated they had presented different ways of orientating the buildings but nothing else would work. The present orientation worked well with the whole complex. The elevations have a lot happening to give the buildings character. Ms. Smith asked if there was any consideration of partial buildings on the corners to give the site more relief. Mr. Springer stated the problem with the second level is that no one wanted to rent them. He suggested it is a great concept even with an elevator. Planner Monroe stated there was some public comment from neighbors to the west and about the mass and size as well. 7 Design Review Board Minutes-June 12,2001 Jim Raznoff asked where the public comment was coming from. Planner Monroe replied public comment had come form the mobile home court and other residents. Mr. Glenn stated the site was a suburban strip modified. He suggested flipping the parking to the rear. He stated the applicant had followed the status quo. He would like to see the parking behind the buildings to create a block. Mr. Springer stated they had tried that scenario. Mr. Springer stated his experience is that everyone that comes to a business is that they want to park and come in without having to walk the entire site to get to their destination. Mr. Howe would like to see something besides asphalt but did not have any other suggestions. He suggested the site is not a shopping center and hopefully there will be nice landscaping. Ms. Noel stated there are a lot of pedestrian amenities and the landscaping seamed very lush. She liked the arch and the mix of materials. Mr. Pohl liked the way the applicant had worked with the site. He likes the lead building having two entrances and the pedestrian amenities. Ms. Smith asked if there was another out for people. Mr. Parks showed on the plan where the relief was and where the garbage enclosures were located. He noted there was a nice pedestrian area included. He stated they may continue the fence to block Perkins garbage enclosure. Mr. Raznoff stated this site design recognizes an infill lot and felt the applicant had approached the site as best as he could. He doesn't like to see the light fixtures so high. He would like to see them lowered and possibly a different shield and would encourage staff to look at it carefully. Chairperson Sorenson stated the buildings were well appointed and very fitting for the intended use,having good character. He would like to see more green space and would approve the project. MOTION: Mr. Raznoff moved, Mr. Howe seconded,to approve the project with the conditions met. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Springer stated they are willing to drop the lighting issue. 8 Design Review Board Minutes-June 12,2001 C. Osco Drug MaSP/COA-#Z-01043 - (Morris) 1800 West Main Street * Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing Ford Dealership and the construction of the new 18,256sf Osco Drug. Mike McKenna, Todd Parker, and John Davison joined the DRB. Planner Morris presented the plan and reviewed the staff memo. She noted the roof color had been changed from red to green. Mr. Howe asked about storm water retention. Planner Morris pointed out on the plan where the storm water retention was located and noted there was a standard condition of approval in reference to storm water retention. Mr. Pohl explained the reason for the storm water retention. Mr. Todd Parker reiterated the location of the storm water retention area. Mr. Howe stated he did not feel the retention area would be empty and did not like the idea of ponds in open places where children are able to get hurt. Mr. Pohl asked if signage had been looked at. Planner Morris stated most of the signs are incidental signage and are not looked at as the primary signage. She gave examples of incidental signage. She stated the applicant met the signage requirements and noted the applicant still had to obtain a sign permit. Ms. Smith asked about the 20%increase for signage and what they were asking to use it for. She asked if the signs would be internally illuminated. Planner Morris explained what the 20% increase would be used for and noted the sign will be internally illuminated. Mr. Raznoff asked if the reader board sign was included Chairperson Sorenson asked about the sidewalk, and grass boulevard on the corner of North 19th Avenue and West Main Street. Mr. Parker stated the Highway Department purchased the area and in part of the coordination, the Highway Department will install a sidewalk for the applicant. Chairperson Sorenson suggested the applicant is not designing the corner and suggested there has to be pavement to the corner for pedestrian crossing. Mr. Parker stated there had been a lot of changes since the last presentation. He stated they have re-located the building to the corner, and that the plan is a hard line copy of what was previously discussed. 9 Design Review Board Minutes-June 12,2001 He stated the elevations, and use of materials had been addressed, noting they had not added more windows. Mr. Parker stated the landscaping is still similar and the two entrances are still in the same location0. He stated MDT had comments regarding a deceleration lane, noting he would work through those comments. Planner Morris stated the city has only required the standard approach. Mr. Howe stated he liked the project, noting he felt the concern about the short cut had been addressed. He stated the parking issue had been addressed to slow traffic. Ms. Noel stated she had missed the meeting previously. She asked about the berm and how much of it was on Main Street at the entrance. Mr. Parker stated there was not only the berms but extensive landscaping. She asked about the choice of trees. Mr. Pohl located the trees on the plan and explained what kind of trees were presented. Ms.Noel asked about the drive thru, she asked if the flow of traffic was easily depicted. Mr. Parker stated they will use painting and drive arrows which will start immediately upon entrance. Mr. Parker explained the drive-thru was only for dropping off prescriptions in one lane and the other lane was for pick-up. He noted the drive thru was only for pharmacy items. Mr. Pohl stated he liked what had been done with the site. He asked about the choice of street tree. Mr. Parker asked what a better choice would be. Mr. Pohl stated Bur Oak was not available at the required 1 %2"caliper and is hard to move. He recommended the applicant look at the recommended street tree list. Mr. Pohl suggested the Linden. Mr. Parks asked what the required diameter was for a street tree. Planner Morris stated it was 1-1/2" to 1-3/4". Mr. Pohl stated he liked the idea of not being able to zip thru from Babcock to Main Street. Ms. Smith asked about the secondary signs and where they were located. Mr. Parker stated on a stand alone store they are typically spread around the store. Mr. Raznoff asked what the site lighting was for the parking lot and what the applicant was providing. Mr. Parker stated the last light presented was not correct and he would have to submit a new type of lighting. He pointed out on the plan where the lights would be located. Mr. Raznoff asked if the lighting situation would require a deviation. Planner Morris stated that the applicant will have to provide examples of lighting to them prior to final site plan approval. Chairperson Sorenson asked why they wanted more signage. Mr. Parker stated more signage would provide more visibility and the berming and landscaping would hide some of the signage. 10 Design Review Board Minutes-June 12,2001 Chairperson Sorenson asked what would justify a larger sign to the applicant. Mr. Parker stated extensive landscaping had been provided and as a trade off it is not unnatural to ask for a 20% increase in signage. Mr. Raznoff recognized the design improvements since the informal review. He stated that the layout of the parking lot had been resolved and the location of the building was a positive feature. He stated he is not totally in favor of the sign increase but felt the landscaping effort deserved the extra 20%requested for signage. Ms. Smith is happy with the building and liked the plan of the entire site. She stated she is not in favor of an increase in sign height. She stated the overlay district was created with specific requirements. She noted in this area the applicant will have the nicest landscaping and the nicest signage. Ms. Smith referenced Western Security Bank,reiterating she was not in favor of more signage. Ms. Noel stated the site worked well and she could appreciate the amount of work which had been done. She stated the landscaping is wonderful. She asked if making the sign larger especially in red would compete with the landscaping. Mr. Howe stated the building,now closer to the corner, will be very positive. He stated the site was much too open before. He suggested the building will nail the intersection,make it more definite. Chairperson Sorenson stated the site is very difficult and noted the applicant had done much under the circumstances. He gave the applicant credit for paying such close attention to what the DRB wanted. He liked the change of color on the roof and was in favor of the project. Chairperson Sorenson stated the arcade with the sidewalk which dead ends, he noted, is a silly feature. He noted the building pulls back and divorces from the sidewalk. Mr. Parker stated that it is used for outdoor sales. He noted the north side is removed from the entry but is still visible. Chairperson Sorenson asked why the sidewalk wasn't continued out. Mr. Parker stated that it could be done. Chairperson Sorenson stated the building still turns it's back on the corner and noted he feels the building had much potential. He commended the project and the designers. Mr. Howe stated the planning regulations talk about an allowable increase in size as a credit for something such as increased landscaping. Planner Morris stated it is an allowable sign increase if the guidelines for a sign increase are addressed and the DRB recommends it to City Commission. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, to approve the project and to move to forward with recommendation with the 20%increase in signage, including the request for the increase in height but not including the reader-board on the sign. 11 Design Review Board Minutes-June 12,2001 No second to the motion. Ms. Smith moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded, to approve with staff recommendation and without the 20% sign increase. Discussion: Ms. Noel would like to see the sidewalk extended to the city sidewalk. Mr. Parker stated there are a lot of drainage issues to be worked around. Ms.Noel moved to amend the motion to the have the sidewalk continue to the city sidewalk under the arcade on North 19`h Avenue. The amendment to the motion carried unanimously. Discussion on the original motion: Chairperson Sorenson stated the actual Osco sign on the building was so large it felt like it was cramping the building. He stated he felt the sign on the building should be reduced. The original motion carried unanimously. D. Del Taco MiSP/COA#Z-01050 - (Morris) 1230 North 7th Avenue * A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a+2135 s.f. fast food restaurant and related site improvements. Mr. Tim Ballou, and Mr. Mac Fogelsong joined the DRB. Planner Morris presented the project and reviewed the Staff Report. She noted the applicant was appealing the decision that the drive thru be placed within the site, having the building closer to the street scape. She stated since it is an ADR condition, the applicant is coming before the DRB to appeal the condition for consideration prior to the public hearing. Mr. Raznoff asked how the project differed from Taco Bell. Planner Morris stated Planning Staff had gone back and forth on that project,noting this site had more room and flexibility. Additionally, the DRB had determined the design preferable to routing the drive-thru in the parking lot. Mr. Raznoff asked Planner Morris to explain where the stacking is currently and if there was or was not enough room to stack. Mr. Raznoff asked if staff was concerned with the stacking length. Planner Morris stated it is a secondary concern and noted the primary concern was the street scape element. Mr. Raznoff asked how many parking spaces were required. Planner Morris stated the required parking was only 11 spaces and was within the site. 12 Design Review Board Minutes-June 12,2001 Ms. Smith asked about the current entrances into K-Mart. She asked if there was an actual two way turn in. Planner Morris stated there is a turn lane. Ms. Smith stated she would like to see the entrance at a safe distance from the entrance to K-Mart. Mr. Howe stated he thought the drive-thru and stack-up should be allowed to interfere with the pedestrian walkway. Mr. Raznoff asked if the ADR suggestion placed the building closer to North 7th Avenue. Planner Morris stated it did. Matt Fogelsong introduced Tim Ballou. Mr. Fogelsong stated originally the plan came before DRB and received comments. He stated then they went through ADR staff review and made revisions prior to submitting the formal application. He stated they worked with the ADR comments and the DRB comments and incorporated them into the plan. Mr. Fogelson noted changes made in the roof structures to include a peak formation. He stated the parapets now have depth,noting they had eliminated the neon which will be replaced with inlays. He noted the awnings now go the length of the building as an overall change in the facade. Chairperson Sorenson stated he did not understand the presented drawings and asked Mr. Fogelsong to explain the depth given to the parapets. Mr. Fogelsong stated the scheme from Applebees was incorporated on Del Taco and the brick columns were brought up the sides. He stated Mr. Sorenson requested a patio on the North side of the building and the applicant incorporated a patio. He stated they have provided an additional sidewalk into the site and one along North 7th Avenue as pedestrian amenities. Mr. Fogelsong stated there are existing approaches on N. 7th Avenue and two approaches on Oak Street, noting they are eliminating the two on Oak Street and are pulling the approach on North 7th Avenue back 200'. He stated the lease boundary is approximately .88 acres and the two arterial streets have 25' setbacks on each side. Mr. Fogelsong noted they had implemented interior landscaping and landscape islands to break up the parking lot from K-Mart. He explained how the parking would be oriented on the site. He stated in keeping with the screening theme they are proposing not to screen the building out, but they want to reduce the impact of the cars through the drive-thru along North 7th Avenue. Mr. Fogelsong stated they are proposing a 30" berm with a slope of 4:1 to screen the distraction of the cars in the drive-thru. He presented a scaled elevation of the drive-thm. Mr. Ballou presented overlays of the drive-thru and explained how the landscape and street trees will look. He showed a scale of the trees which would go in front of the drive-thru. 13 Design Review Board Minutes-June 42,2001 Mr. Fogelsong reviewed problems with the site design proposed by ADR. Mr. Raznoff asked the applicant to explain the relationship of the center line of North 7`h Avenue to the site. Mr. Fogelsong stated the site was not sunk in. Mr. Raznoff asked when the City's concern about the design surfaced. Planner Morris explained the design was discouraged at the informal level. Mr. Raznoff stated the applicant brought the design which ADR did not support back for formal review. Ms. Smith asked the applicant if they were to make a drive-thru lane on the inside of the site, would it encroach into the setback. Mr. Ballou stated his concerns with the drive-thru orientation. He stated they tried flipping the site. He stated delivery access presented a problem except on the plan. Chairperson Sorenson asked the applicant if Del Taco had any site plans in any locations where they worked out in a side profile. Mr. Fogelsong stated the parking makes you place the building to the front of the site which leave limited options. Mr. Ballou stated it is a stand alone lot leased from K-Mart. Chairperson Sorenson stated he felt the parking should be able to be shared with such a big entity as K-Mart. Chairperson Sorenson stated the ADR plan presented much more landscaping. Mr. Fogelsong stated there were several ways to calculate the parking lot. He explained different ways to calculate parking. Planner Morris stated the 85%rule does not include the restroom, and the cooking area. She explained how the 85%rule applied. She suggested a deviation, if necessary, or joint parking with K-Mart. Mr. Raznoff stated he did not get a sense for the applicant's crisis. He stated he was not convinced there is a better solution. Mr. Raznoff stated he did not like the design the applicant had proposed. He suggested he did not see the solution and was not convinced there was not a solution. Mr. Raznoff suggested looking at joint use in parking with K-Mart. Ms. Smith concurred, there are other options to explore. She suggested encroaching into the setback or a decrease in parking. She suggested relocating the drive-thru, leaving less use of asphalt on the site. Ms. Smith stated the berm in theory was a good idea but noted the berm will only further separate the building from North 7`h Avenue street scape. Ms. Smith suggested the berm created a larger separation between the road and the building. Mr. Howe concurred with the concerns. He asked how to reference the Taco Bell with Del Taco. He stated if the site is not big enough that is just too bad, too bad that it has to force the solution on the drive-thru. Mr. Howe stated if the owner/agency does not want the plan then that is too bad. 14 Design Review Board Minutes-June 12,2001 Chairperson Sorenson acknowledged the applicant had done a lot with the building since the informal. He stated the building really did not have a back side. He stated every effort has been made by the applicant. Chairperson Sorenson stated he did not feel it was a good idea not to have pedestrian and traffic circulation mix. He gave suggestions for the parking and the drive- thru. He stated he would encourage the applicant to take advantage of tying into existing parking. Chairperson Sorenson stated it would not be an easy solution. MOTION: Ms. Smith moved,Mr. Raznoff seconded to deny the appeal made by the applicant to include staffs conditions, especially conditions 1 &2. The motion carried unanimously. ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Henry Soren on, Chairperson Design Review Board 15 Design Review Board Minutes-June 12,2001 ATTENDANCE ROSTER JUNE 12, 2001 Those persons attending the Bozeman Design Review Board meeting are requested to sign the attendance roster. PLEASE PRINT neatly and legibly. NAME ADDRESS -9l65' M i 2. S -, ENLa 54. s. 3. � � O nE ��f � � (fie, 4- 6. 7. 8. nt,7,P H 9. 10. ' 2 21- 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.