Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-1997 DRB Minutes MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1997 Members Present: Staff Present: Visitors Present: Kim Walker Dave Skelton Tom Milleson Ed McCrone Andrew Epple Todd and Jaye Smith Mara-Gai Katz Jody Olsen Eric Klotz Rich Noonan Carol Schott Joan Rudberg Cliff Chisholm Scott McCullough Paul Gleye Ernest Moss Dick Prugh ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Chisholm called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 1997 MEETING Chairperson Chisholm asked for corrections or additions to the minutes; hearing none, MOTION: he moved, Mr. McCrone seconded,that the minutes be approved as presented. The motion carried 6 - 0. ITEM 3. CONTINUED 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 the DRB. Planner Skelton reviewed the happenings at the last meeting. He noted that conditions#3,#4, and#7 were the principle issues for discussion. However, he noted that condition#7 was only for the applicants to consider and was not a requirement. He continued with a description of the new elevations submitted last week. Mr. Milleson noted that the choice of windows is what the DRB suggested two weeks ago. He continued that the mechanical equipment screening which was previously installed was the approved screening. Therefore, the applicant is proposing an entirely new screening. He noted that on the entryway canopy,the concern was to replace the columns with split-faced block columns with an open web steel truss. Mr. Milleson noted that he'd like to avoid the total Design Review Board-January 28, 1997 1 openness and install a recessed web with a canopy. Ms. Katz noted that the applicant has addressed the concerns of the DRB at the last meeting. The window pattern is improved. The front entryway isn't quite what she'd hoped, however, she is willing to compromise. Mr. McCrone noted that sometimes trying to disguise something is worse than just leaving it alone,just as a point for future reference. He noted that the concerns of the DRB at the last meeting have been well met. The new screening will compliment the building, the windows will balance the building, and the entryway is an improvement. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the point on disguising something is well taken. However, it is a rule of the City. He asked if the screening overhangs the edge of the roof. Mr. Milleson explained how the screening sets on the building and it doesn't overhang the edge of the roof. The angle of the diagram alters the actual placement design. Chairperson Chisholm agreed that the applicants have addressed the concerns of the last meeting. Mr. Noonan asked if the canopy could be carried back into the building so it is a part of the whole structure. Mr. Milleson explained that there is a ladder in that vicinity and to relocate it could be a problem. He continued that ladder is the only access to the mechanical equipment. Mr.Noonan noted that there is more mechanical equipment than is screened. Planner Skelton noted that there is discretion for the governing bodies to determine what mechanical equipment should be screened from the public right-of-way. Mr. Milleson responded to Mr. Gleye's comment to paint the whole building from the Informal meeting. He noted that painting would become a maintenance issue and need repainting periodically, where as the materials proposed are virtually maintenance free. Planner Skelton noted that the Gallatin County Commission approved the vacating of the cul-de- sac on Orville Way on January 14th. MOTION: Chairperson Chisholm moved to approve the application with conditions from the original Staff report. Condition#1 is no longer required, #2 stands,#3 has been met by the proposed screen presented in today's drawings,#4 has been met in elevation and entryway treatments as presented in today's drawings,#5 stands with the pedestrian pathways through the parking lot being marked with striping and signage,#6 stands as it is,#7 is deleted,and#8 stands as it is. Ms. Katz seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. ITEM 4, PROJECT REVIEWS A. Jaramus COA/Dev#Z-9693 - (Patterson/Epple) 419 West Dickerson A Certificate of Appropriateness Application with Deviations to permit several construction projects currently near completion, as follows: conversion of Design Review Board-January 28, 1997 2 a previously permitted storage area over the existing garage into a second dwelling unit; additions to the existing garage for a carport on the north side and a shop area on the cast side; a second floor addition at the rear of the house; the construction of a hot tub and deck area beneath the new second story addition; and the demolition of the front steps and their replacement with a new porch area. Planning Director Andrew Epple noted that since no one was present to represent the Jaramus application, perhaps it should be continued until the next meeting. Chairperson Chisholm the matter will be held to the end of the agenda,then, if neither the Jaramus's nor the representative are available to answer questions, DRB members will decide how to handle it. B. Bozeman Daily Chronicle Revisions #Z-9662 - (Epple) 2750 West College A request to modify the Final Site Plan to reduce the size of the building and to install vertical metal siding as a major finish material. Chairperson Cliff Chisholm excused himself from the discussion due to a possible conflict of interest. Vice Chairperson Kim Walker presided over this portion of the meeting. Dick Prugh joined the DRB and presented the approved,original drawings and the proposed modifications. Planning Director Andrew Epple briefly introduced the revisions proposed- 1)the applicants are requesting a change in finishing materials from E.I.F.S. (dryvit)to vertical metal siding, and 2) there is a slight reduction in the footprint. Mr. Prugh noted that 14'have been eliminated from the west end of the production area. Planning Director Epple noted that had the change in footprint been the only change,the Planning Office would have administratively approved the modification,however, since there was a change in exterior appearance,the Planning Office felt that DRB should review the modifications. Mr.Prugh demonstrated the changes in siding with samples of the finish materials. He noted that changing to the vertical metal siding will save the owners $30,000. He also noted a savings of $20,000 with the reduction of the footprint. He continued that other cuts were made in the interior to meet the total cost cuts necessary. Mr. Prugh noted that the metal siding would be above the"bump and dent"area. He continued that the color is the same,just the material is different. Mr. Gleye asked for an explanation of the siding materials in relation to the site plan. Discussion on the siding materials and colors ensued. Mr. Gleye asked why the brick trim was proposed. Mr. Prugh noted that it gives the building detail and it was used to break up the long facades. Mr. Gleyestated two reasons that he doesn't like the brick. 1)thebrick and CMU don't compliment one another, and 2)the CMU alone is handsome. Design Review Board-January 28.1997 3 Ms. Katzstated that she agrees with Mr. Gleye about the brick, noting there is compatibility between the CMU and the metal siding. Vice-Chairperson Walker noted that she has a problem with the metal siding on a building of that size. Planning Director Epple noted that metal siding has been approved in manufacturing districts,however, this is a business park in an entryway corridor, where metal siding has not typically been approved. Mr. Prugh noted that the west wall has to remain available for future expansion, so it cannot be made of CMU. Ms. Katz asked Mr. Prugh if he would consider changing the brick for CMU. Mr. Prugh stated he would not as the brick was approved previously in the original application. Mr. Noonan noted that he has a problem with this much metal. Mr. McCrone asked for the exact placement of the trees and the sizes of them. Mr. Prugh supplied the information on the trees. Mr. Prugh noted that the DRB should keep in mind that this is a production building and it should not be compared to the bank on the corner of College and West Main Street. Vice-Chairperson Walker asked Planning Director Epple if the change can be related to the whole building. Planning Director Epple stated that DRB can consider the whole building. He also noted that DRB has three options: 1) approve the modifications as requested, 2) continue the project pending the submittal of additional information,or 3)deny the modifications. Mr. Gleye asked if Mr. Prugh would consider and discuss the suggestions from DRB and bring back another idea. Mr. Prugh stated that he would not re-draw the plans. He redemonstrated the samples of window, siding, and metal framing. He noted that he will take a denial of the modifications to the City Commission. Mr. McCrone noted that the originally approved dryvit is not necessarily something toembrace on a large building. However, he stated that he can't visualize the proposed combination very well. Ms. Katz noted that she has no problem with the brick. Mr. Prugh gave examples of houses and businesses in the city that have the elements he is proposing. Mr. McCrone noted that the entryway corridor guidelines emphasize breaking up of long facades and he feels that the use of brick and the modifications are appropriate. Mr. Prugh noted that the window and brick treatments will be the most visible part of the building,which is why they are playing down the metal siding color. Mr. Gleye noted that he disagrees with Mr. Prugh, the CMU is the most visible,and in his eye,the brick conflicts with the metal. Vice-Chairperson Walker noted that her concerns are the same today as with the previous application in that metal siding is inappropriate in this entryway corridor. It was suggested that Mr. Prugh go back to the owners and propose the possibility of retaining the dryvit. Ms. Katz asked if the siding were more of a silver color, would that be more Design Review Board-January 28,1997 4 acceptable to the DRB. Mr. Gleye noted that it would not as it still is not consistent with the rest of the materials. Vice-Chairperson Walker emphasized that the modification is on the siding material and not the color of it. Discussion ensued on the placement of the different siding materials. Vice- Chairperson Walker noted that metal siding is not consistent with what DRB has approved on other projects in entryway corridors with Business Park zoning. Mr. Noonan noted that he has a problem with the metal siding as it sets up a whole new rhythm. He continued that he can accept the color palette. However, when one turns off College, he/she will see the huge wall of vertical metal siding. It will be a much more prominent presence with metal than with dryvit. Mr. Prugh agreed, as did Vice-Chairperson Walker and Ms. Katz. MOTION: Mr.Noonan moved to not approve the siding modifications, Vice-Chairperson Walker seconded. The vote was 2 for and 2 against, with one abstention. The aye votes were cast by Vice-Chairperson Walker and Mr. Noonan. The nay votes were cast by Mr. McCrone and Mr. Gleye. The motion failed due to lack of a majority vote. Ms. Katz abstained due to her absence at the discussion on the original project. MOTION: Mr. Gleye moved to approve the siding modifications with the condition that the masonry material be reconsidered and the color be reconsidered and that both be brought back to DRB for approval. Mr. McCrone seconded the motion. Mr. McCrone and Mr. Gleye voted aye, and Mr. Noonan and Vice-Chairperson Walker voted nay. The motion failed due to the lack of a majority vote. Ms. Katz abstained for the same reason as on the first motion. MOTION: Mr. McCrone moved, Mr. Noonan seconded, to approve the change in size of the building. Motion carried 4 - 0, with Ms. Katz again abstaining. Planning Director Epple noted the process for appealing a DRB decision to the City Commission. ITEM 5. INFORMAL REVIEW A. Smith Restaurant- (Strahn) 714 W. Mendenhall - An Informal Review to discuss the conversion of a residence in a B-2 zoning district to a restaurant use. Todd and Jaye Smith joined the DRB. Planner Jody Olsen introduced the project. Discussion of the project followed. ITEM 6. DISCUSSION ITEM A. 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 Design Review Board-January 28, 1997 5 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.) Planning Director Epple suggested holding a special meeting to discuss this item since recently the whole DRB hasn't been present to hold the discussion. Mr. Noonan noted that this item should be discussed at the next meeting and perhaps begin the meeting a half hour earlier and put this item first on the agenda. The other members of the DRB agreed and directed the secretary to construct the agenda thusly. Chairperson. Chisholm noted that no one had come to answer questions on the Jaramus application, therefore, it will be continued until the next DRB meeting, February I lth. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Mr. Gleye moved, Mr. Noonan seconded, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried 6 - 0. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. W1 CAJJ���— Clif hisholm, Chairperson Design Review Board-January 28, 1997 6