Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-1996 DRB Minutes MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1996 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Cliff Chisholm called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Kim Walker Ed McCrone Walt Willett Rich Noonan Paul Gleye Mari-Gai Katz Cliff Chisholm Roger Cruwys Staff Present: Visitors Re isg tered: Andrew Epple Carl Solvie Dave Skelton J.R. Reynolds Carol Schott Tom Milleson Eric Klotz Joan Rudberg ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, and NOVEMBER 1, 1996 The Chairperson asked for corrections or additions to the November 1, 1996, minutes. After discussion of those minutes, the DRB concurred that they were correct as written. The Chairperson asked for corrections or additions to the October 22, 1996, minutes. MOTION: The Chairman moved, Paul Gleye seconded, that the minutes of both meetings be approved as written. Motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. GRANTREE CONOCO Amended Final Site Plan Z-9509 - (Patterson [Epple]) 1417 North 7th Avenue - An Amended Site Plan Application to allow the as-built canopy to remain and the removal of the conditions-of-approval for (1) construction of a parapet over the gas canopy, (2) safety rail along the fastfood drive-through, (3) decorative wood braces and columns on the main building, and (4) lattice enclosure of the mechanical dormer on the south side, (5) landscaping changes. Mr. Carl Solvie was invited to join the DRB. Planning Director Andrew Epple reviewed the approved CUP of February 21, 1995, and presented the amendments requested Design Review Board-November 13, 1996 1 by the applicant. He noted that the Planning Office had notified Mr. Solvie that the conditions of the CUP had not been met and that the Planning Office would not release the Letter of Credit it holds to cover the uncompleted conditioned improvements at the time of the owner's temporary occupancy. He continued that Mr. Solvie asked if the DRB would consider modifying the CUP. Planning Director Epple noted that Planning Staff is concerned with the parking lot modifications and landscaping requirements, however, those are not the primary subject of today's discussion; Mr. Solvie will be requesting variances to address those concerns at a later date. Planning Director Epple continued that the concerns of Planning Staff with this application are as follows: 1) the canopy on top of the existing canopy - it was to replicate the structure and materials of the main structure. The canopy was built with a streamlined flat-topped facade; he noted that the Code states that the canopy for a gas island or convenience store shall have the same features as the main building; 2) the required pilasters along the walls of the main building were to be added to break the expanse of the wall - they were omitted; Planning Director Epple noted that Staff agrees with Mr. Solvie that the pilasters along the gables are not necessary, however, the pilasters should be required around the rest of the building as approved; and knee braces were approved from the roof to the building walls to tie the roof to the walls of the building to prevent a floating sensation - they were omitted; 3) a safety rail was to have been installed along the drive through lane - it was omitted, Staff suggests that it may not be needed; and 4) the mechanical system was to have been screened - it hasn't been. In Mr. Solvie's request, he suggested that it not be required. Staff agrees that the lattice screening may not be the most appropriate screening, however, the zoning ordinance requires mechanical equipment to be screened. Staff has suggested alternative screening. Chairperson Chisholm asked for a roundtable discussion. He began by reviewing the discussion in the 1995 approval of the canopy. He noted that the shorter, lower pitched roof as on the Final Site Plan was a compromise between a steeply pitched roof to match that on the main buildings and a flat roof. He suggested that the peak of the parapet would not add that much height to the structure. He also suggested that the fascia be painted to match the rest of the structures. Kim Walker asked Planning Director Epple if the applicant had approached the City for approval of the changes that have been done prior to making the changes. Planning Director Epple noted that the project was nearing completion before the changes were noted by Planning Staff. Ms. Walker noted that she has no sense of a hovering roof over the convenience store. She suggested adding the shorter columns and deleting the longer ones that extend to the second floor into the gables. She noted that the railings don't seem necessary. Her concern was that if the conditions of approval are changed without first gaining approval of the City, then others may do likewise and seek approval after the fact. Roger Cruwys noted that the standing seam, mansard roof on the canopy would not obstruct the view. He continued that the addition of the mansard roof, as approved in the 1995 Design Review Board-November 13, 1996 2 conditions, is needed to tie the island to the other buildings in the complex. He noted that the columns weren't necessary, they just tend to "busy" the building. He concurs with Staff that they definitely aren't needed in the gables. He continued that the hand rail is a moot point. He also noted that though screening of the machinery is required, lattice probably is not the solution. Walt Willett noted that the lack of a parapet on the canopy has bothered him since the canopy was constructed. He noted that the island is out-of-place without it, and the 3' height would create little obstruction of view. He continued that the compromise solution approved in 1995 is needed. He commented that the wood pilasters aren't needed as the building would look too busy. Also the lattice work screening bothers him as it will detract from the rest of the building. If the side walls of the screening were dryvit, then they would match the other gables. He also suggested a rail system on the open side could be used to mimic the windows of the gables. He noted that having the handrail would be more dangerous than not having one. Mr. Solvie noted that the handrail posts which are on the site are inserted into sleeves and can be easily removed. Mr. Willett noted that the garbage enclosure is inappropriate. Paul Gleye asked Mr. Solvie to comment on the Staff report. Mr. Solvie noted frustrations with the engineers out of California. His crew was pressed for time when construction began, and, as they were building, they became wiser as to what looked good on paper didn't necessarily work during construction. He didn't think the wood beams instead of knee braces would be a problem for the City, so he didn't come to the City for approval as they were running out of time. The same thing happened with the canopy. He noted that the fascia is the same shade as the main building. He also noted that the building should be the focal point, not the island. He continued that it isn't correct to build a high gas canopy that obstructs the view or becomes the dominating feature of the complex. He wanted a clean look. He requested the color photographs from the file and used them to point out that the canopy doesn't take away from the aesthetics of the main buildings. He continued that the extra 3' would obstruct the view from Baxter Lane. Mr. Willett noted that the hard line of the canopy is a distraction from the main building. Mr. Solvie noted that he is looking at the canopy as a customer, not as a planner or a Design Review Board. Mr. Gleye noted that the building itself is not the important feature, it is the ensemble. He concurred with Mr. Willett that the flat canopy doesn't add to the project. The peaked roof would enrich the structures and add color to the project. He commented that the pilasters may be too much. He complimented the project and noted that details such as knee braces are important. He stated that the view from the street is most significant. He noted the hand rail is insignificant. However, the screening is important, but could be horizontal and vertical rather than diagonal. Ms. Walker inquired if the Bozeman Municipal Code requires canopies. Planning Director Epple noted that all entryway gas stations and convenience stores are required to have Design Review Board-November 13, 1996 3 matching canopies. Ms. Walker noted a concern about the changing of the conditions at will as it could create a precedent for others to do the same. She continued that the island, convenience store, and motel don't all go together as they are. Mr. Cruwys concurred and stated that the mansard roof is needed on the canopy to tie the project together. MOTION: Mr. Gleye moved that project revisions be recommended for approval as follows: t) the roof canopy parapet be constructed as approved; 2) the pilasters be eliminated, however the knee braces shall be constructed; 3) the safety rail be eliminated; and 4) the mechanical equipment screening be approved with the side walls enclosed with a dryvit surface, if that is permissible by the code, or, if a solid wall screen is not permitted, as approved by the Planning Office as per code. Mr. Willett seconded the amendment. In the discussion that followed, Mr. Cruwys noted that the knee braces may not be necessary. Ms. Walker and Chairperson Chisholm concurred. The Chairperson noted that some additional detail could enhance the project, however. He continued that the knee braces wouldn't need to be a condition, but could be a recommendation. Mr. Willett concurred. He noted that signage that's been added to the walls break up the large flat surfaces. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Ms. Walker moved to amend the motion to make the addition of the knee braces a recommendation. Chairperson Chisholm seconded the motion. The amendment to the motion carried 4 - 1, with Mr. Gleye casting the nay vote. Ms. Walker noted that the motion as it now reads doesn't eliminate the lattice screening. Discussion ensued on the structure of the screening. Mr. Solvie asked if they could paint the equipment and leave the machinery exposed. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the City doesn't allow the machinery to be exposed and some kind of screening is required. Mr. Solvie volunteered to paint the silver pipe green and put some wood strips across the openings for screening. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Mr. Gleye moved to amend the motion to revise the condition of enclosure to a series of vertical and horizontal beams subject to staff approval, and the painting of the mechanical equipment the same green as the roof. Ms. Walker seconded the amendment. The amendment to the motion carried 5 - 0. The main motion, as twice amended, carried 5 - 0. Design Review Board-November 13, 1996 4 ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW A. GIBSON GUITAR Informal (Skelton) 1894 Orville Way - An Informal Review to discuss the expansion of Gibson Guitar and the effect it may have on the current Improvements Agreement for the dust collector installed last year. Planner Dave Skelton introduced Mr. J.R. Reynolds, Mr. Tom Milleson, and Mr. Eric Klotz to the DRB. Discussion of the proposal followed.. ITEM 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Deviation Criteria Planning Director Epple suggested that this item be held over to another meeting. The DRB concurred. B. Resolution #DRB-9641 Submittal requirements and completeness Discussion was held on the draft resolution. Some changes were made and the edited draft resolution will be forwarded to DRB members in the next packet. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Cliff thisholm, Chairperson, Design Review Board Design Review Board-November 13, 1996 5