Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-1997 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1997 Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Ed McCrone Walt Willett Dave Skelton Mara-Gai Katz Carol Schott Kim Walker Visitors Present: Rich Noonan Chuck Westlake Paul Gleye Douglas Westlake Cliff Chisholm Jeff Kack Roger Cruwys Val Lint Joan Rudberg ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice-Chairperson Kim Walker called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. The secretary took the attendance. ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 28 AND FEBRUARY 11, 1997,MEETINGS Vice-Chairperson Walker asked for correction or additions to either set of minutes. Mr. McCrone suggested waiting until later in the meeting to approve the minutes of either meeting. ITEM 3. 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 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. Vice-Chairperson Walker asked for comments. Mr.Noonan noted that this discussion began due to problems with deciding deviations. Senior Planner Dave Skelton explained why the overlay districts were set up. He continued that the criteria is subjective and if DRB is uncomfortable with the text as it is, then DRB should come up with more workable criteria, which would be subject to the approval of the City Commission. Mr. McCrone noted that deviations have been granted by DRB based on excellence of design, which is not specified in the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance. He continued that additions to non-conforming structures are usually granted as long as height restrictions are met. Ms. Katz suggested that the Planning Office research projects that have been granted deviations and Design Review Board-February 25,1997 1 determine which have been treated the same and which differently. Mr. Gleye noted that design excellence is not a criteria in the conservation district, it only applies to the entryway overlay districts.He also noted that purpose of the conservation overlay district is to define the historic character of the neighborhood. Chairperson Cliff Chisholm joined DRB and continued the meeting. He noted that the entryway has specific guidelines and general specifications in the Code. He noted that the Secret=of the Interior's Standards don't apply to the conservation overlay district,but only to the historic districts. He discussed the intent of the Code-and the need to be sensitive to the era that is reflected by the neighborhood.-Discussion ensued on the historic value of neighborhoods Mr. Gleye noted that the Standards are much too specific and the ui lin ._ are much too general. He objects to applying the standards which are meant for historically significant buildings to homes or buildings which are not significantly historical. Ms.Katz noted that historic value of a neighborhood is difficult to judge in many instances as it is so murky. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the idea is to be sensitive to the time period,but not require identical buildings within an area. He continued that the DRB should consider how a building is massed,break down the mass, and analyze the sense of scale. He noted that the change in scale is what becomes obtrusive. Mr.Noonan noted that the fabric of the neighborhood isn't really defined for us. Is the DRB trying to change the fabric by forcing applicants to do certain things? Chairperson Chisholm noted that if there is an area in town that is a blight,then the DRB does need to try to upgrade the fabric of the neighborhood. Mr.Noonan noted that DRB is trying to help manage what is being done, not to control what is done. (Mr. Cruwys joined DRB.) Ms. Katz noted that sometimes there isn't enough of the fabric of the neighborhood so that DRB can upgrade the integrity Senior Planner Skelton noted that DRB often has a problem deciding what is design, what has architectural connections, and what are the site improvements -which is a DRC issue. Mr. Gleye noted there are three types of conditions to be addressed: 1)those that qualify for the Secretary of Interior's Standards, 2)those that mend a broken neighborhood integrity, and 3)those where DRB tries to find a definition of good architecture where there is no architectural significance. Ms.Walker noted that this process will take time and the Planning Staff can bring projects Desiga Review Board-February 25,1997 2 that DRB has done and had problems with so DRB can try to define criteria. Ms. Katz concurred. Senior Planner Skelton noted that sometimes the DRB just has to deny a project. Ms. Walker noted that there has to be a place to draw the "no" line. She suggested and agreed with Ms. Katz that if Historic Preservation Officer Derek Strahn has stated that the house has no historic integrity, then the DRB can decide not to use the historic criteria. Mr. McCrone noted that the starting place might be 18.42.080 in the Code as it states the concerns that have been discussed. Chairperson Chisholm asked if the Planning Department has guidelines from other communities. Senior Planner Skelton stated that it does. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the more the DRB can clarify the criteria, the better decisions DRB can make and the more the applicants will know what is expected of them. Ms. Walker suggested that the diagrams that the Planning Staff uses from the Design Objectives Plan be incorporated into the Zoning Code. Senior Planner Skelton noted that it will take time to pull the applications and compare them. He continued that this process will take time and the discussion item should remain on the agenda for several meetings. ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 28 AND FEBRUA.RY 11, 1997,MEETINGS (Continued from earlier in the meeting) Chairperson Chisholm asked for corrections or additions to either set of minutes. Ms. Walker moved, Mr. Noonan seconded, that the minutes for both meetings be approved as written. Motion carried 7 - 0. ITEM 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. Kack MaSP/COA#Z-9705 - (Skelton) 51 Evergreen Drive - A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 11,500 sq. ft. warehouse and office building, and a 7,000 sq. ft. light industrial/manufacturing facility, and related site improvements. Chairperson Chisholm introduced the application and asked if any requests had been made to remove the item from the consent agenda. Mr. Cruwys noted that he'd like it removed from the agenda so that he might ask a question of the applicant. Jeff Kack joined DRB. Mr. Cruwys noted that he is against the use of a lot of asphalt in any area of the City and asked if Mr. Kack could add some green spaces in the parking lot to align the parking with the streets and lessen the amount of asphalt. He noted that it would make more green space. Mr. Kack noted that the double doors are the access for the trucks for deliveries and it would be difficult to maneuver the trucks if there were islands of landscaping in the areas of those driveways. Mr. Cruwys suggested that Mr. Kack add more green space and get rid of some Design Review Board-February 25,1997 3 of the asphalt. Chairperson Chisholm asked if the DRC had a problem with the amount of asphalt being proposed. Senior Planner Dave Skelton noted that they didn't as long as the driving aisle had 26' of backup maneuverability. He noted that the applicants are reducing the driveway access by 10' at the request of the DRC. He continued that the 26 driving aisle width is a little tight this time of year with the amount of snow storage that has accumulated. Ms. Walker asked if Mr. Kack agreed with the conditions imposed by the Planning Staff. Mr. Kack noted that he agrees with them. MOTION: Mr. Cruwys moved to approve the application with the condition that parking to the east be aligned to reflect an orientation with the access road and the conditions recommended by Staff. Ms. Katz seconded the motion. Mr.Noonan clarified that the doorway will remain where it is shown on the plans. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the intent is not to have the applicant realign the parking or the building, Staff is to determine the appropriateness of the parking changes. The motion carried 7 - 0. ITEM 5 PROJECT REVIEWS A. Midwest Industries MaSP/COAJDev#Z-9709 - (Skelton) 2320 North 7th Avenue - A Major Site Plan/Certificate of Appropriateness Application, with a deviation to encroach 25'into the 50'required front yard setback with off-street parking and a driving aisle,to allow an 11,468 sq. ft. shop addition and a 2,100 sq. ft. office addition to the existing C.M.U. facility, and related site improvements. Chairperson Chisholm introduced the project. Chuck Westlake, Douglas Westlake, and Val Lint joined DRB. Planner Dave Skelton gave an overview of the application. (The Staff report is on file in the Planning Office.) He explained the deviation to encroach 25' into the required 50' setback to allow a two-way driving aisle to access the north side of the building. He noted that the applicants are requesting to place the landscaping in the front yard and near the main entry of the building. He reviewed the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Chuck Westlake disagreed with the 50'-60'landscaping at the north end of the front yard. He noted that they need the three parking spaces for stacking the vehicles that are waiting for service. He continued that they will increase the landscaping on the south end in the front yard. Mr. Westlake also disagreed with installation of a shed roof over the entryway due to the high winds that are experienced on the north end of town. Planner Skelton noted that conditions #3 and#5 are to be eliminated as they are no longer applicable. Design Review Board-February 25,I997 4 Chairperson Chisholm asked for comments from the Board. Mr. Gleye noted that this is a great improvement of the site. He continued that part of the issue is that the City has grown up around them. He asked for an explanation for the three parking spaces in the north front yard. Mr. Lint explained how they process trucks that come in for work, for example, snowplow attachments. Mr. Chuck Westlake noted that they stage the vehicles there until the shop workers are ready to work on them. Mr. Gleye noted that with respect to the front facade, Staff has requested that it be replaced with a canopy. Mr.Westlake noted that the severe winds have ripped off two doors in recent years. Discussion followed on the roof line and window pattern. Mr. Gleye asked if there is a reason for the window pattern. Mr. Westlake noted that there are offices in the area of the windows and beyond the windows is display area. He continued that he has no problem with installing two windows towards the front of the south side and leave the three small windows toward the rear. Mr.Noonan noted that a patron would have to walk across the access to the shop to reach one of the three parking spaces. Mr. Westlake explained how the pedestrian circulation works and how the patrons get to the shop area. Mr. Lint noted that with the added landscaping in the south area of the parking lot,there could be a reduction of that needed in the north area. Ms. Walker noted that the lot already has a 40%reduction in landscaping and cannot afford to reduce the landscaping in the north area. Mr. Cruwys asked if it would be a real inconvenience for them to just install hammerhead parking and add landscaping to the north front yard area. Discussion of the idea followed. Chairperson Chisholm noted that he is uncomfortable with the two completely isolated parking areas. He continued that making left turns onto N. 7th to move trucks and forklifts from the shop to the south seemed awkward. It is also awkward to turn the driveway into a one-way drive aisle. Discussion followed on the typical work that is done. Mr. Westlake noted that he'd rather maintain the two-way aisle and install the landscaping else where. Mr. Noonan noted that if the doorway is truly a customer service doorway,then a canopy is needed over it also. Ms. Katz asked why condition#5 is to be eliminated. Planner Skelton noted that he'd checked into the record with the Building Department and there is a history of replacing doors after being ripped off by the wind. He noted that they will also want to recess the doorway. Mr. McCrone asked how much more landscaping was recommended. Planner Skelton noted that the applicants need about 520 sq. ft. of landscaping above and beyond the front yard landscaping. Ms. Walker asked if they have about half of what is required. Planner Skelton Design Review Board-February 25,1997 5 noted that they have about 40% of what is required. Mr. McCrone asked how much width is needed for the driveway. Planner Skelton noted that 24' is required. Mr. McCrone suggested trading some of the front landscaping for landscaping to the south side of the parking lot. He discussed landscaping of the free-standing sign. He continued that the applicant is correct about the wind along N. 7th. Mr. McCrone noted that the driving aisle should be increased to two-way and eliminate the landscaping island in front of the store. He asked if Staff was satisfied with the color palette. Planner Skelton noted that he'd like some discussion on it. Discussion on the color palette ensued. Chairperson Chisholm asked if only local nursery people are allowed to do the landscaping plans. Planner Skelton noted that is true due to climatic issues. Chairperson Chisholm concurred with Mr. McCrone on the safety factor in front of the building. He doesn't feel that DRB should restrict the use of the site. He concurred with Staff on eliminating the gable roof on the entryway. He suggested an awning made of welded steel supported with posts would be more suitable than the gable roof. He concurred with Mr.Noonan in that both public entrances should be emphasized. He asked about the material to be used in the monument sign. Mr. Westlake noted that the sign will be made of steel. Ms. Walker concurred about removing the landscaping island in the front of the building as it is more appropriate to have a two-way driving aisle. She has a problem with granting the deviation without design excellence or more landscaping. She'd like to see an additional landscaping island on the south side to enhance it. She'd like to remove the three parking spaces on the north front yard,place them somewhere else, and landscape that north front yard. Mr. Cruwys concurred with Ms. Walker on removing the parking spaces on the north front yard. He also concurred that the driving aisle should be two-way. He asked how the trucks move through the parking lot on the south side. Mr. Westlake noted that trucks use the east end of the parking lot to turn around as patrons park more to the west side of the lot. Mr. Cruwys noted that he concurred with Ms. Walker on the landscaping on the south side and in the north west comer. Ms. Walker suggested the applicants increase their landscaping by at least 25%. Ms. Katz was concerned with the color palette presented as some of the colors would be obtrusive if combined. Mr. Cruwys concurred. He noted that the gable doesn't really belong on this structure as it appears to be tacked on. The two entryways should reflect that they are entryways. Mr. Westlake explained the two types of doors and the two types of patrons who enter them. He noted that it would not be practical to try to duplicate the two entryways as greasy,broken equipment is brought in through the shop door and showroom patrons enter through the business entrance. Mr. Cruwys suggested banding could be attached above the doorways to draw attention to them. Mr. Lint explained the changes in the windows and the landscaping as suggested thus far. Discussion ensued on what to do with the front of the building. Design Review Board-February 25,1997 Chairperson Chisholm summarized that the consensus of the Board seemed to be to give the applicants a two-way driving aisle. He noted that the Board could give approval to this project with many conditions or the applicants could come back to the next meeting with changes. After the applicants indicated they would come back with changes as long as the rest of the meeting/hearing dates wouldn't be affected,Mr. Gleye suggested limiting the concerns for the next meeting and discuss only those concerns. Chairperson Chisholm noted he is in support of eliminating the landscaping island in front of the store and allowing the return of two-way traffic in front of the store. In return, the landscaping in other areas including the three parking spaces area on the north end, the margin on the southern boundary, and along the entire street front including berming and trees shall be maximized. He continued that the landscaping should be done within the entire 50' front setback on the southwest corner. Chairperson Chisholm noted that landscaping in an existing development in a manufacturing zone is different from landscaping in a newly developing area. He continued that it doesn't require the same type of site treatment as a new facility. Mr. McCrone noted that the east and south sides are boxed in by other industrial buildings and not visible to the passing public. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the landscaping could be added along the south side of the building along the parking lot boundary. Mr. Gleye concurred that the view from N. 7th is the most important. Mr. Cruwys and Ms. Walker suggested extending the south side landscaping area to at least half way back to the gravel area. Mr. Westlake noted that a 14' wide area would work to about half way to the gravel and from there a 7' wide area would work. Mr. Cruwys suggested adding a tree in the garbage enclosure area and some landscaping there. Mr. Westlake asked about moving the front landscaping island around to the south side. Discussion followed on that idea. Chairperson Chisholm noted that he would not be opposed to a deviation to the number of parking spaces required to allow additional landscaping. Ms. Walker suggested adding landscaping in the areas suggested by DRB as best they can. Mr. Gleye noted that if they could define the movement area for trucks, then it would make sense to landscape around that area. Mr. Lint noted that they store steel along the eastern boundary. Mr. Cruwys suggested installing a narrow 8'to 10'band with coniferous trees along the eastern boundary would be adequate. Chairperson Chisholm asked Planner Skelton for the zoning in this area and who the neighbors are. Planner Skelton noted that the zoning is M-2 and the nearest neighbor is a vet clinic. Chairperson Chisholm asked if screening is required in this zone. Planner Skelton noted that any outdoor storage must be screened. Design Review Board-February 25,1997 7 Chairperson Chisholm asked for discussion on the canopy suggestion. Mr.Noonan suggested enhancing the entryway in some manner. Mr. Gleye noted that the entrance should face the street. He continued that some kind of entrance statement is needed. He suggested that the applicants and their architect come up with an entryway enhancement. Chairperson Chisholm noted that only one entrance is needed. Ms.Walker noted that their idea of a three dimensional sign with a name mounted on it would be sufficient. Chairperson Chisholm clarified that the suggestion is for a band of signage that protrudes 6" or so. Mr.Noonan noted that the banding would be placed over the windows and the doorway to enhance the entrance. Chairperson Chisholm asked the applicants if they understood what they are to bring back to the next meeting. Mr. Westlake summarized: )1 eliminate the three parking spaces and landscape the area, 2) landscape around the south side of the building, and 3) extend the landscaping on the south side of the parking lot to the edge of the asphalt. Mr.Noonan noted that they should be generous with the landscaping. Mr. Westlake noted that they will be economical also. He continued listing the items to be brought back to the next meeting: 4)the three dimensional sign is to enhance the front entryway, and 5)maintain the window size and add two windows to the south side. Chairperson Chisholm suggested adding only one window on the south side to conserve wall display space. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the application will be continued until the next meeting. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Chisholm adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m. Cliffdhisholm,DRB Chairperson Design Review Board-February 25,1997 8