Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-11-1997 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY,MARCH 11, 1997 Members Present: Staff Present: Visitors Present: Mara-Gai Katz Dave Skelton Joan Rudberg Ed McCrone Andrew Epple Chuck Westlake Roger Cruwys Carol Schott Douglas Westlake Paul Gleye Paul Vander Jagt Cliff Chisholm Member Absent: Mike O'Leary Rich Noonan Kim Walker Walt Willett ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Chisholm called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. He directed the secretary to record the attendance. ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 1997, MEETING Chairperson Chisholm asked for corrections or additions to the minutes. Hearing none, MOTION: Chairperson Chisholm moved that the minutes be approved as written. Mr. McCrone seconded the motion. The motion carried 6 - 0. ITEM 3. CONTINUED PROJECT REVIEW A. Midwest Industries MaSP/COA/Dev#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 application. Planner Dave Skelton gave a quick update including 1) elimination of the three parking spaces in the northwest corner and replacing it with landscaping, 2) elimination of the landscaping island in front to allow for two-way traffic in front of the building, 3)the addition of a 7' wide landscaped strip between the building and the parking lot,4) asphalt paving of the parking lot, 5)landscaping of the monument sign, and 6)the addition of a store-front window in the southwest corner of the building. Planner Skelton noted that the above modifications permit the elimination of conditions#2 and#3 of the Staff Report. Chairperson Chisholm noted that DRB was only to discuss the areas of concern from two weeks ago. He discussed the changes made and asked if the number of parking stalls would change. Design Review Board-March 11,1997 1 Planner Skelton noted that there were no changes in the number of parking stalls. (Mr. Willett joined DRB.) Mr. Cruwys asked if the number of plants meets the landscaping requirements. Planner Skelton noted that it does, however, with regard to the deviation,there is more landscaping required and more given. Discussion ensued on berming and landscaping. Mr. Cruwys noted that more berming is needed on the south side for screening. Planner Skelton noted that there is a DRC condition that relates to screening along the entire south and east boundaries. Discussion ensued on the screening requirements Mr. Noonan noted that there is a need for vegetation along the south side. Mr. Westlake noted that he is not going to do it as it is not reasonable. Chairperson Chisholm clarified that DRC has required screening for any outdoor storage, which might be a chain link fence and a hedge. Ms. Katz concurred with Chairperson Chisholm. Planner Skelton clarified that due to the M-1 zoning, there is no required side yard setback for landscaping. Mr. Cruwys noted that both the chain link fence and the hedge are too much. Chairperson Chisholm noted that it is another body's condition and DRB shouldn't attempt to change it. Planning Director Andrew Epple noted that the Planning Office can deal with the screening administratively. Mr.Noonan noted that the Westlakes have done a great job incorporating the DRB suggestions from two weeks ago. Mr. McCrone concurred. Chairperson Chisholm moved to recommend to the Planning Board and City Commission approval of the application as revised and submitted today with Staff condition#1 included, emphasizing 2'-3'berms in the front yard development; additional landscaping along the monument sign; the addition of a condition#le to read, "regular spacing of boulevard trees that emphasize seasonal color"; including conditions#4,#7, and#8; excluding conditions#2,#3, #5, and#6. Mr. Gleye seconded the motion, which carried 7 - 0. ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEWS A. Courtesy Auto Body Courtesy Auto Body MiSP/COA Revisions Rawhide Ridge and N. 19th Avenue #Z-9668A-(Olsen) An Informal Review on a Minor Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Revisions Application to get advice and direction WITHDRAWN B. Van's IGA Foodliner Informal#I-9714 (Epple) 912 North 7th Avenue - An Informal Review Application for comments and suggestions on the expansion of the IGA store. Summary of notes for the file: Design Review Board-March 11,1997 2 ITEM 5. 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 district. Chairperson Chisholm noted that this discussion was begun last meeting. One request by the Board was that Staff look into examples at hand of design guidelines that other cities use as a resource to refine our guidelines. Another request was that Staff look into the history of previous Board actions that involve deviations. A member of the City Commission expressed concern at spending Staff time to research this item. He continued that the overall goal was to create more definite standards to be followed by applicants and this Board. He noted that DRB is empowered to enact certain procedural guidelines. He continued that Sections 18.42 and 18.43 are parallel and within the jurisdiction of the DRB to alter, with the approval of the City Commission. It was noted that the Certificate of Appropriateness tip sheet gives some suggestions for roof line. Ms. Katz clarified that Staff was to look back over the decisions in the Conservation Overlay District because she felt there was a pattern as to how the Board had handled the deviations. She noted that it wasn't a simple request. Chairperson Chisholm noted a need to refine or fill in the gaps of the Guidelines. Ms. Katz noted that the more the Board works together, the more diversity can be allowed in a given project. Mr. Willett noted that architectural style does change over time and that's okay. Mr. Gleye noted that this Board had done a great job reviewing projects according to the design objectives. He asked if the entryway corridor guidelines really address what the community wants them to address. He asked if the entryway guidelines really do the job that they were intended to do and what is wanted by the community now. He noted the only real controversy on the Board has been caused by whether or not projects have really been encouraged to enhance the historic significance in the rehabilitation and restoration. Planning Director Epple clarified that there are two areas of discussion-one is for regular COA's and the other is COA's with Deviations. He concurred that the Board has done a terrific job. He noted that there is validity for invoking higher standard criteria for projects seeking deviations. He has explained to the City Commission that the design professionals on the Board are guided by well-established principles of design. Design Review Board-March 11,1997 4 Chairperson Chisholm noted that the comments of the applicants to the City Commission that the decisions of the DRB are just eight people's opinion is like someone telling a jury that the conviction was just the opinion of the jury. He noted that some people feel that DRB discourages creativity. Mr. Cruwys noted that a chain link fence doesn't make a great screen even though the Code states that it is appropriate. Chairperson Chisholm concurred that screening is one issue. Mr. Noonan noted that because of the request for a deviation, the DRB can require more landscaping. Planning Director Epple noted that Staff tries to keep projects on track so appeals don't have to be made to the City Commission. Ms. Katz noted that DRB has to keep in mind that they have to act on projects in a way that won't be appealed. Discussion ensued on what clients often say and do. Planning Director Epple encouraged DRB to continue making the best design decisions to forward to the City Commission as they have done in the past. Discussion followed on the scope of DRB comments, suggestions, and conditions. Chairperson Chisholm noted that a point to keep in mind is that when a formal application comes to DRB, there probably have been months of work that have gone into the project to that point. Though this doesn't mean that the DRB should rubber stamp a project, the Board shouldn't try to redesign it. If it is unacceptable to the community, then the Board should make suggestions for making it acceptable. Mr. Gleye reminded the Board that the discussion of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle decision wasn't as reported in that paper. He noted that the denial of the modifications had to do with materials not the architectural design. Planning Director Epple discussed many buildings in Bozeman that have different architectural styles. He continued that the DRB has endorsed diversity in design which has had a very positive effect on the City. He reviewed Section 18.42.080 and noted that these are the criteria followed by DRB in making decisions and recommendations in the Conservation Overlay District. He suggested that some of the DRB members could flesh out the wording and point out the gaps. Mr. Willett noted that the more narrow the criteria,the less flexibility the applicants and DRB will have. Planning Director suggested including in motions of approval reference to these sections from the Code that pertain to the project. That would make decisions more defensible in courts. Planning Director Epple noted that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards are applicable to the whole conservation district. He noted that due to compliance with the Standards, a building or neighborhood might become eligible for placement on the National Register. Chairperson Chisholm noted that there has been confusion on the Board as to the extent that the Standards can be applied to the Conservation District and that they apply more to historical buildings rather than new construction. Design Review Board-March 11,1997 5 Planning Director Epple noted that when the use of the Secretary of Interior Standards in the conservation District has been upheld in District Court. Planning Director Epple noted that due to that decision, COA's are to be generally judged by the Standards. However, when deviations are requested,the Standard's are to be applied more stringently. He noted that he will have Staff spell out which criteria are being referenced in the Staff Report recommended conditions. Then DRB can reference them in the ensuing motions. Mr.Noonan asked if there is a need for a deviation review summary at this time. Planning Director Epple noted that it is not possible at this time for Staff to do the research. He suggested the DRB members begin tracking decisions now,then in a year,they will have a good record and can discuss it at that time. To attempt to go back into the records now is impossible with the workloads Staff has at present. DRB members concurred. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Chairperson Chisholm moved, Mr. Noonan seconded,that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried 7 - 0. All Cliff A isholm, Chairperson, Design Review Board Design Review Board-March 11,1997