Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-10-2001 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY,JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Acting Chairperson Bill Hanson called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. and the secretary recorded the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Dick Pohl Dawn Smith Jennifer Willems, Recording Secretary Joanne M. Noel Jim Raznoff Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Dan Glenn Henry Sorenson Jami Morris, Assistant Planner Bill Hanson Nicole Wells Karin Caroline, Assistant Planner Visitors Present Ray&Kay Campeau Lonny Walker Chad Malcott Gary Foster George Mattson ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MAY 22nd,2001 Acting Chairperson Bill Hanson asked for changes and/or additions to the minutes of May 22, 2001. Hearing none, he called for a motion. MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved,Ms. Noel seconded to approve minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Sunspots MiSP/COA/Dev#Z-01095 - (Monroe) 421 North Broadway Avenue A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations to allow the demolition of the existing storage building and construction of office complex with showroom/warehouse combination, approximately 10,000 sf and related site improvements. Gary Foster and Chad Malcott joined the DRB. Planner Dave Skelton presented the project for absent Planner Jeff Monroe. He reviewed the staff report. Design Review Board Minutes-July 10,2001 1 Planner Skelton noted the site is very small and deviations are needed to develop the site. He reviewed the deviations outlined in the Staff Report. He stated there had been concern from the property owner to the south but as of this morning there had been no opposition or negative testimony in reference to the proposal. Planner Skelton reviewed the recommended conditions presented in the Staff Report. He stated to improve the site and neighborhood deviations for parking and streetscape have been requested. He noted the big issue; what streetscape was to remain on Avocado Street and if it was significant and adequate to support the deviations. Planner Skelton stated Planning Staff felt the streetscape was adequate enough within the context of the proposal. Mr. Pohl asked what the DRB had seen previously,noting he remembered the building being further to the east and an access off of the alley. Mr. Chad Malcott explained the building had been located further to the east with an access off of the alley. He noted the building was larger but since had been down sized by approximately 2000 square feet. Planner Skelton stated there had been concern about the building size and the ingress and egress off of Broadway Avenue. Mr. Pohl asked about the landscape plan,noting he could see trees but not a landscape plan identifying what was to be specified. Mr. Malcott stated they were still working on the landscape plan with a landscape architect. He noted there was a problem because Avocado Street was not in the proper location. He stated the street is positioned 17 feet too far to the eastern side. Mr. Foster stated there is an excess of 10 feet at the bend. He showed on the plan where the street should be located. Mr. Pohl stated the street was not centered on the right-of-way at all. Mr. Hanson asked if the city was going to require the applicant to install the curbing and sidewalk. Planner Skelton the City Engineer and the Director of Public Service recommended the curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement be improved on Avocado Street, but mentioned nothing about requiring the applicant to install the curb and sidewalk. He stated he had advised the applicant this was a recommendation by technical staff based on the street improvements, suggesting this is a subject which should be discussed with the City Commission. Planner Skelton stated this is an older part of town where the City Engineer has been implementing as many street improvements as possible. Mr. Foster stated the intersection is very busy and suggested keeping as much away from the corner as possible, noting it is a public safety factor. Mr. Glenn asked about the access into the alley. Mr. Foster stated he was going to be required to pave the alleyway, which seemed a lot to him. He stated they would only be using the alleyway once or twice a month. Mr. Glenn suggested eliminating one curb cut and questioned why the alley would need to be paved. He suggested landscaping along Broadway Avenue. Mr. Malcott stated they did not want to pave the alley, which is why the applicant applied to have another access put in for deliveries to be made at the garage doors. Design Review Board Minutes-July 10,2001 2 Mr. Foster stated there are two separate warehouses proposed and to make the project viable and make the payments,he would have to rent out one of the warehouses making the access a necessity. Mr. Glenn asked Mr. Foster if he would be willing to make a compromise with the city if the city was willing to bend paving on the alley,would he then be willing to give up the second access. Mr. Foster suggested giving up the second access would still make the project difficult giving the warehouse access from the alley only. Mr. Malcott suggested there needed to be a tenant access. He stated if a tenant who rents the warehouse space receives deliveries, then they will put in garage doors and pave the alley if necessary. Mr. Foster stated the existing log cabin will be re-moved, restored, and replaced suggesting he would like to put in a linear park and a pond. Mr. Malcott stated the log cabin will be used by the tenants. Mr. Hanson asked how wide the access drives would be. Mr.Malcott stated the access drives were city standard, 26 feet wide. Mr. Hanson asked the applicant if they had looked at any other configurations of the drive lane and parking area, from the standpoint of increased landscaping. Mr. Foster stated they had but felt the entrance was in the safest location. Mr. Hanson stated there is a paved triangular area on site which could be used as a landscaped area. Mr. Malcott suggested there would be traffic issues. He pointed out where a picnic area would be set up for employees. Mr. Glenn suggested the triangular pattern for parking was an inefficient use. He suggested orienting the parking another way. Mr. Foster suggested they were concerned about having a place for delivery vehicles/truck parking and felt the triangular area would be a good location for such parking. Mr. Hanson asked the applicant to explain how frequently delivery vehicles/trucks would be on site. Mr. Foster suggested deliveries are made every week to every other week. He stated the trucks are usually 50 feet in length and have to enter at an angle onto a landscaped area now. Mr. Foster stated deliveries are made sometimes in the middle of the night and throughout the day. He noted the vehicles are usually parked for about an hour. Mr. Glenn suggested moving the doors to the alley for easy access for delivery vehicles. Mr. Glenn suggested taking the same amount of paving and re-orienting the parking to add more green space. Planner Skelton stated there is compromise if the applicant could enhance the streetscape of the neighborhood,why not gravel the alley. Mr. Foster stated he had no problem graveling the alley and maintaining it. Mr. Pohl stated the architectural treatment works successfully in the M-1 zone,noting the south side is not attractive, suggesting vines for landscape treatment. He stated he is concerned about the parking arrangement, noting there is a lot of asphalt. He noted this is an industrial area and is used for such purposes. Mr. Pohl stated he would like to protect as much green space as possible. He stated he reluctantly would endorse the project. Design Review Board Minutes-July 10,2001 3 Mr. Glenn stated the cabin bothered him, suggesting they have surrounded two sides of the cabin flush with asphalt and parking. He suggested pulling the project into the green area. Mr. Glenn suggested the area is zoned M-1 and the area mixes both industrial features with residential features,noting he is bothered by the lack of use of the alley. He stated he would prefer to see the whole thing pushed up or to the right. Planner Skelton suggested M-1 does not have setbacks to maintain the streetscape except for the front yard,20'off Broadway and Avocado Street. Mr. Glenn would like to see a scheme which utilizes the alley. He suggested using asphalt and gravel creates impervious services and gravel is a reasonable material. Mr. Glenn suggested all asphalt would not be an improvement and he would like to see a reduction of asphalt by utilizing the access. Mr. Glenn stated he would like to see parking places accessed from the alley and not from the main entrance. Mr. Glenn would like to see the applicant build in the city and noted the project has a lot of good qualities. Mr. Hanson noted his concern had to do with the orientation of the parking lot, he suggested it seemed constrained. He suggested the proposal would work better if the building was mirrored so the garage doors were off of the alley and the building was pushed right to the 20' setback on the east side and the whole area where the drive-thru is was landscaped. Mr. Hanson suggested re-locating the log cabin and leaving a green area around it conceiving it as an amenity to the site instead of an after thought. He stated he would agree with the idea of having to pave the alley comes without merit. He would like to see the existing alleys utilized for access and circulation for service vehicles. He stated given the set backs and the access,the sight is not easy to work with. Mr. Glenn suggested shifting the building back and encroaching into the setback,noting the parking spaces would fit along the back off of the alley. He stated the parking is intermittent, loading could occur in the parking spaces eliminating the access all together. Mr. Glenn stated the problem is the duplication of accesses, suggesting relocating the cabin and pushing the parking all together. Mr. Hanson stated if the building was pushed to the 20'setback, delivery vehicles would have to back in. Planner Skelton stated it is not a code prevision because it is not a public street or a private street it is an alleyway. He stated the alley is desirable for both parking and access. Planner Skelton suggested forwarding a recommendation to the City Commission noting the DRB did see another solution for the access and in lieu of paving the alley it could be used for loading, un-loading and parking. Design Review Board Minutes-July 10,2001 4 Mr. Foster agreed paving should be kept to a minimal. He stated it makes more sense to have grass. Mr. Hanson stated the DRB does not like so much asphalt and suggested the trade off would be having the applicant strive to increase landscaping and reduce the impact of vehicles on the corner. Planner Skelton stated regardless of the recommendation the DRB makes to the City Commission, the applicant should come back before the DRB. He stated there needed to be enough room to back out of the alley. Mr. Glenn stated he would recommend the applicant come back again before the DRB, taking the alley access into consideration. He stated he would recommend the alley access not be paved,with the goal to minimize asphalt. The DRB added a new condition and asked that the applicant come back before the DRB prior to Final Site Plan approval. Planner Skelton stated the landscape needed to be prepared by a licensed landscaped nursery person. MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved, Ms. Noel seconded,to have the project looked at again by the DRB, taking into consideration the use of the alley as the primary access for delivery vehicles/trucks and possibly for parking as well, and that a requirement not be made to make the alley asphalt but become gravel, and that those changes would be done with the intention of increasing the amount of landscape and reducing the amount of asphalt on Avocado Street and Broadway. The motion carried unanimously. Planner Skelton reiterated for the minutes; the DRB is asking the Commission to act on the project and to make a decision but have the revised site plan come back before the DRB before they continue onto a final site plan. Mr. Hanson asked if Mr. Glenn wanted to add this as condition#3. Mr. Glenn"stated it would be the easiest". Mr. Hanson stated what Mr. Glenn had recommended is that condition#3 above be added,possibly to include the movement of the building. Planner Skelton stated the motion should include that the site plan be amended to provide access off of the alley for off street parking, building loading and un-loading and that the paving at the corner changed to greenspace with the recommendation the alley not be paved at this time but be maintained by the owner. He stated prior to Final Site Plan approval, DRB will review the Final Site Plan and a licensed landscaped nursery person needed to review the proposed landscape materials. MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved, Mr. Pohl seconded to the have the project reviewed by the DRB again,taking into consideration the use of the alleyway for delivery vehicles/trucks and parking as well and a requirement made for the alleyway to become gravel and improvements made to increase with landscaping and decrease the asphalt. The motion carried unanimously, 4-0. Design Review Board Minutes-July 10,2001 5 B. Campeau MiSP/COA/DEV-#Z-01115 - (Morris) 419 South Grand Avenue A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations to construct a+1900 square foot, two-story, garage/apartment structure and related site improvements. Ray and Kate Campeau joined the DRB. Planner Morris introduced the project and reviewed the Staff Report. She reiterated the deviations as noted in the staff report and the recommendations made by the Historic Preservation Officer. Planner Morris explained to the DRB why they were reviewing a project which is in the Conservation Overlay District,noting the application requires a COA and had deviations. She explained until there is another Historic Preservation Officer hired by the Planning Department, the DRB will review Certificates of Appropriateness with deviations. Mr.Hanson asked how the four parking stalls were calculated. Planner Morris explained how the four parking stalls were calculated,noting because of the number of dwelling units, the potential commercial aspects of the property based on the number of renters, and the location of the project in respect to the college. She stated because of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District the applicant can request unlimited deviations. Mr. Campeau pointed out on the plan where the parking is located on a cement parking slab. He explained the current parking situation does not meet code. Mr. Campeau stated they are proposing the project because they would like to have a garage and the proposed location was the closest access to the house also protecting four existing trees. He noted that on the plan they are asking for two curb cuts but would consider removing the access totally,bringing the hedge across to the west, adding more lawn, and only having two accesses. He noted they would be eliminating one parking spot. Mr. Campeau stated they currently have no legitimate parking, and they are proposing four parking stalls. Ms. Noel asked how much room was between the house and the alley. Mr. Campeau replied there is one foot between the house and the alley,noting they are asking to be one foot away from the alley to allow for a gable on the addition. Mr. Campeau stated there are plantings in the alley and there would be no problem including a trellis. Mr. Pohl stated he would strongly support the removal of the fifth stall, allowing the applicant one more on street parking place. Mr. Campeau agreed, noting they have never had a parking problem with neighbors. Design Review Board Minutes-July 10,2001 6 Mr. Pohl asked the applicant if he had given any consideration in locating the garage to the north of the house. Mr. Campeau replied"yes"they had. He stated the neighbors would not be happy with that proposal. Mr. Campeau explained the proposed modifications on the site plan. Mr.Pohl suggested protecting the existing sugar maple tree from possible damage from vehicles. He concurred with staff recommendations and is in support of the project. Mr. Glenn stated alley houses are very important because they provide another layer of housing stock in the existing fabric, which will never be outrageously expensive. He strongly recommended the project be forwarded with support from the DRB. He suggested eliminating the curb cut and have a half cut between the apple and the flowering crab trees. Mr. Hanson concurred with other DRB members and would like to see the curb cut eliminated with the addition of one on street stall. He noted he would be in support of the project. MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Mr. Glenn seconded,to approve the project with staff s recommendations and to include a new condition;the removal of the old curb cut and restoring the pad to a landscaped yard. The motion carried unanimously 4-0. C. Walker MiSP/COA/DEV-#Z-01033 - (Caroline) 2104 North Rouse Avenue A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations to construct a+2,900 square foot building for light manufacturing purposes and related site improvements. Lonny Walker joined the DRB. Planner Caroline presented the project and reviewed the staff report. She reviewed the site plan explaining how the building is oriented in reference to O'Dells appliance store. She noted the proposed project and O'Dell's Appliance Store would share access for parking. Planner Caroline stated storm water detention will be located throughout the yard which had been deemed sufficient by the Engineering Department. Planner Caroline noted DRC had approved the project with staffs conditions. Mr. Pohl asked if a mark on the plan represented the 100-year flood zone. Planner Caroline replied the mark was a 35' stream set back measurement. Mr. Walker stated the 100-year flood zone mark was located on the other side of the river. Planner Caroline explained the rise of the river bank,noting there is a 6' drop or better on the east side where there is a huge amount of flood plain area on the site. She stated there is a 35' stream setback, noting the plan had been approved for a three lot Minor Subdivision. Design Review Board Minutes-July 10,2001 7 Planner Caroline stated within the Subdivision there is a restriction for the East Gallatin River of 100' setback. She noted the applicant had requested and had been granted a variance to stay with the 35' setback,per Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Noel supported the project and liked the idea of shared parking and the architecture. Mr. Pohl had no concerns and would endorse the project. Mr. Glenn supported the project. Mr. Hanson asked about the side yard setback. Planner Caroline stated it is a 3' required M-1 setback. She noted the site plan is correct and had a 3' setback. MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved, Mr. Pohl seconded, to approve the project as presented. The motion carried unanimously. ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Noel moved, Mr. Glenn seconded, to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Bill Hanson,Acting Chairperson Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-July 10,2001 8 ATTENDANCE ROSTER JULY 10, 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. 3. C,HAP /`7A�Le Uc--r /L1Ai,J Styr ? 4. kA 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.