Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-1997 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1997 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Cliff Chisholm called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. Members Present Members Absent Mari-Gai Katz Kim Walker Cliff Chisholm Rich Noonan Walt Willett Roger Cruwys Ed McCrone Paul Gleye Staff Present Visitors Present Andrew Epple Tom Milleson Carol Schott Eric Klotz Scott McCullough Don Amos Chuck Westlake Val Lint Douglas Westlake Joan Rudberg ITEM 2. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 1996 Chairperson Chisholm called for corrections or additions to the minutes. Hearing none, he moved to approve the minutes of the December 10, 1996, meeting as written. Mari-Gai Katz seconded the motion, which carried 4-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Gibson Guitar Addition MaSP #Z-9699 - (Skelton) 1894 Orville Way - A Major Site Plan Application to allow a 9,100 square foot addition to the existing facility, including parking lot expansion Tom Milleson, Eric Klotz, and Scott McCullough joined DRB. Planning Director Andrew Epple explained the proposal. He emphasized the Architectural Review on page 2 of the Staff Report (on file in the Planning Office.) He reviewed the 8 recommended conditions for a conditional approval recommendation to the Planning Board. Chairperson Chisholm asked about the existing screening device- was it never approved or is it Design Review Board Minutes-January 14. 1997 1 not in compliance with the code? Mr. Epple stated he understood the structure was not built as approved. Chairperson Chisholm asked the applicant to respond to each condition,then the Board would have a round-table discussion. Mr. Milleson stated that condition#1- was approved by the County Commission this afternoon. Condition#2 -The intent of the applicant was to replace all of the light fixtures so they are all the same. Condition#3 - He presented what he said were the approved plans for the screening, and distributed pictures of the screening from all sides. He stated that what is up there for screening is what was approved, however,it is in disrepair. He stated that the photographs show what is there. The Chairperson asked what materials were used in the screening. Mr. Milleson replied that it is not finished yet, but it is what was approved. Mr. Klotz noted that the screening has yet to be painted, however the spans are too long, so they will have to brace the structure and straighten it. He admitted that the front looks terrible, however, they plan to brace it and paint it. Mr. Milleson asked the Board to keep in mind that the screening that's there is what was approved. Mr. Willett noted that the workmanship is lacking quality. It looks very temporary. Mr. Klotz noted that they aren't happy with the way the screening appears,however,they have a problem with changing the design now. Condition#4 -Mr. Milleson noted that he had taken several suggestions from the informal discussion and incorporated them into this design. He agreed that the existing building has little detail. He was concerned that the requested detail would make the addition even more obvious. He is open to suggestions from DRB. He noted the banding recommended by Staff could be incorporated. He wanted to down-play the differences rather than exaggerate them. He noted that the entry is a new design. Condition#5 -Mr. Milleson noted that Planner Skelton wants the main pedestrian circulation to be detoured away from the front of the two loading docks. Mr.Milleson emphasized that this is an employee parking lot. He continued that the new loading dock on the addition will take over most of the functions of the old docks. The old docks will be used primarily for in-house transfers. Chairperson Chisholm asked for an explanation of the pedestrian walkways. Mr. Milleson explained them. Discussion ensued on the loading docks. Condition#6-Mr. Milleson asked when the new landscape guidelines for PUD's in the N. 19th Avenue area will be adopted. Planning Director Epple noted he expects them to be preliminarily approved by this time next month. Chairperson Chisholm inquired of the Planning Director if condition#6 will meet the new code. Planning Director Epple noted that it will and that the emphasis of the new code will be for drought resistant species of vegetation. Mr. Willett asked what effect the new code will have on this project. Planning Director Epple noted that the first 50' from the property line along N. 19th is considered the greenway. Mr. Milleson noted that the greenway and landscaping are not an issue;they intend to comply with the new guidelines. Design Review Board Minutes-January 14, 1997 2 Condition #7 - Mr. Milleson noted that the economics of the expansion don't allow the option of masonry wall construction. If this remains a condition, the project probably won't happen. Condition#8 - Mr. Milleson noted this condition poses no problem. Chairperson Chisholm stated that he doesn't think the metal building is a problem. He asked Mr. Milleson about the metal panel added to the main building. Mr. Milleson noted that this is not an extension,he was trying to tie the two buildings together. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the addition of the entryway doesn't seem to be well integrated into the existing building. He asked if the proposed entrance was in response to the code or to this Board. Mr. Klotz noted it is in response to the suggestions made by this Board in the informal review. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the material that makes the pattern in the gable end only appears in this part of the building. He suggested using a truss of open metal construction in the gable and not to introduce a material that seems foreign to the rest of the building. Mr. Willett noted that he remembers that the metal building was not a problem in the informal review. He noted that DRB recommended that the window treatment reflect the existing windows and the downspouts be used to break up the long expanses. He felt that the wrapping of the roof will give a horizontal rather than a vertical feel to the building. He agreed that some open work at the entrance would look better than that proposed. His problem is with the mechanical equipment screening as it looks completely foreign. Chairperson Chisholm agreed with Mr. Milleson's point that if it was approved on a prior project, then we have to live with it. He agreed that it needs to be finished in a good workmanship manner. Mr. Klotz asked if they tore down the screening and painted the mechanical equipment the same color as the fascia, would that solve the problem? Chairperson Chisholm stated that wouldn't solve the problem and noted that the screening required by the Code doesn't guarantee that the site will look better. The danger for this Board is setting a precedent for allowing screening to not exist. Planning Director Epple noted that the code requires screening of roof top mechanical equipment. Discussion ensued on the existing screening and what was approved. Planning Director Epple suggested using the same metal siding to cover the framing and to come back in a couple of weeks with more information. Mr. Milleson noted a problem with the metal siding on the screening could be that the air flow wouldn't be adequate. Chairperson Chisholm noted that if the screen were substantially built and painted the color of the new metal building, it would be more appropriate. Mr. Willett noted that the screening could be capped with a metal band of the same color as on the rest of the building, which would tie it into the rest of the building and protect the screening structure. Mr. McCrone agreed with Mr. Willett's interpretation of the screening and he would like it to Design Review Board Minutes-January 14,1997 3 match the rest of the building. Mr. Klotz noted that they are limited as to what they can do with the screening on the roof because securing it is a problem as the roof is rubber. The screen is just sitting up there anchored to the air unit. They plan to use concrete filled tires to anchor it more firmly. Ms. Katz asked how the applicants plan to address the concerns that DRB has about the windows. Mr. Milleson noted that on the original informal review plans, he had used smaller windows and has changed them to the window used in the existing building. He noted they could introduce some horizontal banding to line up the windows. If horizontal banding were used on the new building, he suggested using a darker gray. He felt the windows wouldn't look as good without some banding. Ms. Katz commented on the existing windows. She suggested using the dominant window pattern. Discussion ensued on the windows. Mr. Willett noted that the difference is the uniform pattern of windows on the existing building compared to the grouping of the windows on the addition. Ms. Katz suggested that grouping the windows would be better. Mr. Milleson noted that the three different colors of horizontal bands will make the buildings look more horizontal rather than vertical. Ms. Katz noted that the issue remains with the screening, and questioned whether it can be improved the way it is. Discussion ensued on what the two week delay would do to the Planning Board meeting. Planning Director Epple summarized that conditions 3, 4, and 5 are the ones that need to be addressed. Discussion ensued on the roofing suggested in the conditions and proposed in the submittal. Chairperson Chisholm noted that DRB should give the applicant more specific direction for the new submittal of plans. Ms. Katz noted that there has to be some compatibility between the two buildings and the windows on the addition should be similar to those on the existing building. She continued the proportions of the windows should be the same on both buildings. Also,the entryway design would typically need to been seen and approved by the Planning Office, and perhaps the DRB, before it is changed. Lastly,the screening needs to be improved. Chairperson Chisholm suggested that DRB accept the fact that this is a very different looking building. He suggested making more order to the windows with a symmetrical arrangement of them and the downspouts. A window pattern that is more horizontal and in proportion would be more acceptable. Mr. Willett noted that gable entry modifications, the mechanical screening, and pedestrian circulation are the other issues. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the screening should be substantially anchored to the roof and Design Review Board Minutes-January 14,1997 4 painted to match the fascia on the roof. Planning Director Epple suggested striping and signage could improve the pedestrian walkways. Chairperson Chisholm noted that this is different from a public facility in that there are few customers coming to the building, therefore, striping and signage should be adequate. Chairperson Chisholm moved, Ms. Katz seconded, that this application be continued to the next meeting to review the issues just covered. Motion carried 4 - 0. Planning Director Epple reminded Mr. Milleson that the Planning Office needs 10 copies of materials by 5:00 next Tuesday. ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW A. Midwest Industries, Inc.,Addition - (Skelton) 2320 North 7th Avenue - An informal review to discuss a 13,000 sq. ft. addition to an existing facility. Planning Director Andrew Epple presented the project. Don Amos, Chuck Westlake, Val Lint, and Douglas Westlake joined DRB. Discussion of the proposal followed. ITEM 5. DISCUSSION ITEM A. Draft PUD Revisions(As prepared by the Bozeman City-County Planning Board, to partially implement North 19th and Oak Street Corridor Plan) - (Skelton) Planning Director Andrew Epple gave a thumbnail sketch of the PUD Revisions and the need for them. He noted that the Planning Board are proposing to change the PUD requirements for the North 19th/Oak Street Corridor area so that the front yard setbacks will count towards the open space requirement. The time issue has been addressed by having the subdivision review and the PUD review occur concurrently. Staff has worked with Shelly Engler from Cashman's to develop the specifications for the greenway corridor. Chairperson Chisholm suggested that DRB members either make comments now, make written comments later this week,or attend the hearings and make comments. Mr. McCrone noted that he is concerned that the PUD procedures don't apply to everyone,just to the property owners along 19th Avenue and Oak Street. Planning Director Epple explained that this is a pilot project and if it is effective in the N. 19th/Oak Street area, then the Planning Board has said they will consider expanding it to include the entire jurisdiction. Mr. McCrone Design Review Board Minutes-January 14, 1997 5 noted that it still puts those property owners under less stringent guidelines than everyone else. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the landscaping standards refer to designing a formal street scape in one place, and an informal landscape in another. He asked if we are trying to make a similar streetscape all along N. 19th and Oak Street with like trees, lights, and so forth, or is it to be an informal street scape. Where does one begin and the other end? Planning Director Epple noted that Planner Skelton and Ms. Engler will be clarifying this issue. He also noted that the City Commission will hold a hearing on the PUD Revisions two weeks after the Planning Board hears them. B. Deviation Criteria See specifically Sections 18.42.080 and 18.43.080 Bozeman Municipal Code for information pertaining to deviation criteria in conservation and entryway overlay districts; see Sections 18.42.060 and 18.43.060 for general standards and design criteria in overlay districts; and see Sections 18.42.010 and 18.43.020 for general discussion of intent and purpose of overlay districts. (Held over from the November 13, 1996, meeting until later date.) The four members present noted that since the whole Board wasn't present to discuss this item, it will be continued to the next meeting. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Chisholm inquired if there was further business to come before the DRB. Hearing none, he adjourned the meeting at 5:55 p.m. Clythisholm,Chairperson. Design Review Board Minutes-January 14,1997 6