Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-1997 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAV, MAY 13, 1997 Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Ed McCrone Kim Walker Christopher Williams Bayliss Ward Paul Gleye Roger Cruwys Debbie Arkell Patrick and Lisa McMullen Mara-Gai Katz Dean Patterson Dean DeGidio Cliff Chisholm Derek Strahn Tim Thelen Rich Noonan Carol Schott Greg Brice Walt Willett Velma McMeekin Cindy Corliss Mr. Guttman ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Cliff Chisholm called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 8 AND APRIL 22, 1997,MEETINGS The Chairperson asked for corrections or additions to either set of minutes. MOTION: Hearing none, he moved to approve both sets of minutes as presented. Mr. Gleye seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEWS A. Mr. T's Towing and Service CUP/COA-#Z-9735 - (Olsen) 816 N. 8th Avenue - A Conditional Use Permit with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of a 6400 sq. ft. structure for a towing and service facility including an enclosed yard for vehicle storage. Chairperson Chisholm excused himself from the Board as his architectural firm is representing this applicant. He appointed Mr. Gleye as interim Chairperson. Cindy Corliss joined the DRB. Planner Jody Olsen presented the application, noted the change in address to 723 West Aspen Street, and reviewed the Staff Report(on file in the Planning Office). She noted the Code Requirements and the Conditions. She suggested a condition on the adequacy of the chain link fence. Planner Olsen noted that DRB is to make a recommendation to the Planning Board. She noted that Ms. Corliss has read and agreed to the Code Requirements and the Conditions. The DRB will decide if there is a need for an additional condition on the fencing. Design Review Board Minutes-May 13,1997 1 Mr. McCrone clarified that the agreed upon conditions do not include the item for consideration. Planner Olsen concurred. Ms. Corliss explained the vegetation proposal. Walt Willett arrived. Mr.Noonan asked for further clarification on the information in the pictures. Ms. Corliss stepped to the site plan and indicated the angles from which the photos were taken. Mr. McCrone noted that additional screening for the fence is unnecessary. Interim Chairperson Gleye noted that there were no deviations to address. Mr. Willett asked if there will be a sign on North 7th to draw attention to the business. Ms. Corliss noted that the signage will be site located. MOTION: Mr. McCrone moved to approve the application with Staff conditions 1 & 2 and the three Code requirements as stated. Ms. Katz seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. B. PJ's Plumbing &Heating MiSP/COA/Dev#Z-9747 - (Olsen) 708 North Rouse - A Minor Site Plan and a Certificate of Appropriateness Application with Deviations to allow the construction of a warehouse and office space. Chairperson Chisholm rejoined the DRB. Bayliss Ward and Patrick and Lisa McMullen joined DRB. Planner Jody Olsen presented the project. She noted the applicants are requesting a deviation to allow the structure to encroach 7 feet into the required 15 foot side yard setback. She reviewed Administrative Design Review Staff issues,the landscaping points required, and the recommendation from Staff to install screening along the entire front yard. She reviewed the Code Requirements and the recommended Conditions, plus five conditions for DRB consideration. She noted that the City Commission would make the final decision. Chairperson Chisholm asked Planner Olsen to explain how residential adjacency affects this application. Planner Olsen noted that there is residential zoning across North Rouse Avenue from this property, therefore, this property must screen accordingly. Mr. McCrone asked if this part of North Rouse Avenue is in the Entryway Overlay District. Planner Olsen noted it is not. Mr. Gleye asked for further clarification of the residential zoning, which Planner Olsen explained. Mr. Willett asked if any of the screening will be removed. Mr. Ward noted that it would not. Mr. Willett noted that the north elevation needs no further screening. He continued that the proposed metal siding is designed to be applied vertically and doesn't lend itself well to horizontal application as ADR Staff is recommending. He further noted that the band of cedar helps to break up the mass of the vertical height. He continued that the square windows define the shop/warehouse area of the building and it's appropriate for them to be different from the windows in other areas of the building. Design Review Board Minutes-May 13,1997 2 Mr. Ward noted that the applicants agree with conditions 1, 3, and 4. However, condition#2 is unnecessary as there is no mechanical equipment to be screened and condition#5 should be met by the trees in the creek corridor. He proposed to add landscaping on the north elevation to break up the scale. Mr. Gleye noted that the architectural character is appropriate as is. There is no need to change the windows. The two issues for him are the deviations. Staff notes that this project meets the three criteria, however,he disagrees. He doesn't think this type of application meets the deviation criteria and suggested that a variance would be more applicable. Chairperson Chisholm restated the Conservation District deviation criteria is for rehabilitation of historic properties within a historic district. Mr. Gleye noted that he doesn't feel that this project is contributing to the historic character of this area. Also,though not intended for the public to use, the entrance should be emphasized and be on the west end of the building. Mr. Ward and Mr. McMullen noted that the parking arrangement has been changed for DRC and had been designed for accessibility. Ms. Katz noted a concern about the mass of the north elevation. She suggested a low window on the east elevation. As for the deviation discussion, she feels there is a vernacular sense to the building, however, it is not of this neighborhood. Mr. Ward noted that there cannot be windows on the north facade as it is required to have one-hour fire-wall protection. He noted that no one uses the alley as an alley. It is used for parking by the adjoining business. Mr. McCrone asked why there are deviations. Planner Olsen noted the deviations are due to the residential adjacency. In an M-1 district,there is a 15 foot setback requirement from an alley. Mr. McCrone noted that he concurred with Staff on the deviations. On the north side, since it is adjacent to another metal building,there isn't a problem for him. He noted that this type of project does meet the Master Plan for industrial use of this area. Mr. McCrone asked Planner Olsen how she analyzed the landscaping points. Discussion followed on the landscaping requirements and the proper placement of the landscaping. Mr. Willett asked if screening on the north side would count towards landscaping points. Planner Olsen noted that it would. Mr. Ward agreed with landscaping on the west end of the north side. Mr.Noonan noted that he would direct the landscaping towards the north elevation. He noted that he is uncomfortable with the deviation request. He disagrees with the horizontal placement of the siding as it is manufactured to be placed vertically. He continued that blocking the east property line with screening would take away from the entry of the building; landscaping should be negotiated for placement in the rear yard. Chairperson Chisholm noted that it isn't appropriate for this Board to decide if deviations are appropriate or not. The Board has to make a determination about whether or not this project improves the historic character of this neighborhood. He asked for a brief discussion of deviation criteria. Design Review Board Minutes-May 13,1997 3 Mr. Gleye noted that the issue is not with the application. He noted the historic significance of the Conservation Overlay District, which is to encourage restoration and reuse of buildings on non-conforming lots, using deviation requests if necessary. He feels deviations are to recapture the historic significance of the area and, in this case, the applicant should apply for a variance. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the two complications are 1) this is now an M-1 zone and 2)it is across the street from a residential zone. These facts make it difficult for the applicant to meet the requirements. He noted that any attempt to upgrade the property in a neighborhood is an attempt to improve the neighborhood. Planner Arkell clarified the definitions of deviation and variance. She noted that this application would be a deviation from the Code. Chairperson Chisholm noted that Mr. Gleye's point is that this project doesn't recapture the historic significance of the neighborhood. Planner Arkell then read the criteria for Historic Districts. Mr. Gleye asked if landscaping along Rouse Avenue would obstruct the sense of entry. Mr. Noonan noted that he thought it would. Chairperson Chisholm summarized the issues with the application: 1)the architecture of the building 2)the north facade expanse, and 3) landscaping to meet the required points. He noted that some significant amount of landscaping on the north elevation would count towards the landscaping points and would be appropriate. Mr. Willett noted that the entry needs more definition. Chairperson Chisholm suggested that a relatively minor porch cover would serve to define the entry. Mr. Willett asked about the parking required by DRC.Mr. Ward explained. MOTION: Chairperson Chisholm moved to approve the application with the deviation subject to code requirements; the following Staff conditions as per the DRB#1, #2, and#3 remaining in tact, #4, #5, #6, and#8 eliminated, #7 changed to address a porch-like covering to be added to the main entrance; and two additional conditions 1) landscaping shall be provided along the north elevation concentrating on the west half of the north elevation to break up the mass, and 2)that the applicant provide some variety of shrubs to provide a dense screen along the parking lot that fronts Rouse Avenue. Mr. Gleye seconded the motion. Mr.Noonan asked for clarification on the landscaping on the north elevation. Chairperson Chisholm noted it was more effective to screen the north-west elevation from the public sense along North Rouse Avenue. Mr.Noonan noted that some landscaping should drift towards the east end of the building also. The motion carried 6-0. C. Tom's Flooring Store Sign COA/Dev. #Z-9740 - (Williams) 517 North 7th Avenue - A Certificate of Appropriateness with a Deviation to allow the proposed sign to exceed the permitted 28 sq. ft. limit by 4 sq. ft. Design Review Board Minutes-May 13,1997 4 Planner Christopher Williams reviewed the project. He described the existing free standing sign and the proposed landscaping. He noted that Staff is recommending approval. He noted that the new sign code, when adopted, would allow a freestanding sign to have 32 square feet. Mr. Gleye noted that current code allows an off-premise sign but not the square footage requested. He continued that conversely,the new sign code will allow the square footage but not the off-premise signs. MOTION: Mr. Willett moved, Ms. Katz seconded,that the DRB recommend approval of this application to the City Commission. The motion carried 6-0. D. Hampton Inn- Change in materials - (Arkell) 70 Baxter Lane - A Final Major Site Plan request to allow a change in materials and windows on the structure. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell presented the proposal. She noted that a request to modify the materials and elevations on the building has been received. She continued that ADR Staff felt that DRB should be made aware of the changes proposed. She noted the applicant has added more gables, used less drivit and more rock veneers, and added a chimney to the east elevation. She asked DRB if it wants to review these modifications more thoroughly to determine if they meet the Entryway Design Objectives. Chairperson Chisholm noted that since there are significant changes in the elevations,he'd like to review the proposed modifications. Mr. Willett concurred and noted that the design is different. Planner Arkell noted she would send out full packets with new information for the next meeting. E. DeGidio COA/Dev Z-9729 - (Skelton) 803 North Grand Avenue - A Certificate of Appropriateness with a Deviation to allow a two story addition to an existing single family residence. Dean DeGidio joined the DRB. Historic Preservation Officer/Planner Derek Strahn presented the application which is a request for a 2000 square foot addition and a full front porch. Deviations are being requested for setbacks for the front yard setback and for a fence to be located in the right-of-way of Aspen Street. Historic Preservation Officer comments included that the corner side yard setback is the reason there is a need for the front yard setback deviation. Planner Strahn noted that the house sets back quite a distance from the street, similar to the Promisco application of about six months ago. He Design Review Board Minutes-May 13,1997 5 noted there have been several improvements made to the drawings since the informal review. He reviewed Staff s recommended conditons. Chairperson Chisholm asked that condition#1 be explained. Mr. DeGidio disagreed with the condition. He noted that it will take away from his living space. Planner Strahn noted that the jog, as he understands the condition, would jut back into the building two feet and be four feet across before it returns to the planned line of the building. Mr. Willett noted that the jog would add relief to the mass and size on the south side. Mr. Gleye noted that the unbroken length of the facade is a problem, however, the jutting in and out adds character to a structure. Mr. Willett noted that the stairway will take out the whole hallway as proposed in the site plan. Mr. DeGidio noted that he can change the plan. Mr. Willett noted that there is a lot of wasted space in the bathrooms. He continued that the site plan will not work as it is drawn and that this could affect the exterior appearance of the project. Mr. Noonan noted that the inside of the plan has to work for the outside of the plan to work. Mr. DeGidio noted that he anticipates changes as they do the construction. He inquired what on the plans won't work. Mr. Willett noted that the stairway/hallway won't work. Ms. Katz concurred. Chairperson Chisholm noted that Mr. Willett is doing Mr. DeGidio a favor by telling him that the design won't work before he begins the project. He continued that the 18 foot long bathroom wastes space and the stairway is in the middle of the living space. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the external look of the building makes the two sections look like two separate buildings. The other issue is the porch. He noted that Mr. DeGidio has added more windows since the informal review, however,the porch is a little insignificant. He continued that he'd like to suggest different siding for the addition as it wouldn't have to match the existing siding. He suggested that Mr. DeGidio submit what he wants to do. Planner Strahn clarified the type of siding that would be used. Mr. DeGidio noted he would probably use masonite. Mr. Willett noted that the front facade looks like a four plex with one entrance. He noted that if the porch was the full length of the front facade and had steps up to it, it would pull the whole structure together. He also noted that he'd like to see an entrance from Aspen Street. Chairperson Chisholm concurred. Mr. DeGidio asked if the porch could wrap around to the side or open to the side. Consensus was that it could. Discussion followed on the size of the porch. Mr. DeGidio agreed to do the jog on the south facade and add to the size of the porch. MOTION: Chairperson Chisholm moved to approve the application as represented by the elevation submitted with Staff conditions#1, #2, #3, and#4, and adding#5 -the entrance porch on the east elevation be significantly increased in both scale and size of members used including the use of heavier columns and trim, and#6 -the siding of the addition will be horizontal lap siding, the exposure can differ from that on the existing house(narrower than on the existing Design Review Board Minutes-May 13,1997 6 structure - equal to or less than six inches). Mr. McCrone seconded the motion. Planner Strahn asked if any additional information is needed on the floor plan. DRB members noted that it should be redrawn and submitted for approval by ADR Staff. Motion carried 6-0. ITEM 4. PROJECT RE-REVIEW A. Grantree Canopy/Fuel Service Bays - (Epple) 1325 North 7th Avenue - A Re-review of the DRB condition requiring a mansard roof on the gas island canopy. Lowell Springer and Carl Solvie joined DRB. Planner Dean Patterson presented the modification, noting that DRB has looked at this application three times prior to today. He continued that Mr. Springer had requested this review to eliminate the mansard roof on the canopy. Chairperson Chisholm asked Planner Patterson for an update on the last review. Planner Patterson noted that the last review asked for modifications to the pilasters, drive-through railing, mechanical screening, and the mansard roof on the gas canopy. All were approved except changing the canopy roof. Mr. Springer submitted photographs of the existing and proposed roofing. He noted that Mr. Epple believes it to be a nice straight forward design. He continued that he understands Mr. Epple feels the canopy should be tied architecturally to the main building. Mr. Springer noted he doesn't think that means an exact duplicate of the roof structure of the other buildings on the property. He noted that there is a liability problem with any roof that accumulates snow. The snow and ice falls from all sides of a mansard roofed canopy, onto whatever is beneath it. He noted that when snow and ice fall twelve feet to the ground,they will smack someone or some vehicle. He also showed photographs of roofs in town that have potential to drop snow and ice on anyone. Mr. Springer noted that there is also an issue with the dormer containing the mechanical screening- it isn't working to screen the equipment, therefore, the applicant is willing to make it solid. He noted that the applicant is also willing to modify the lenses of the canopy lighting so all light is directed downward. Planner Patterson noted that the original proposal was for the slanted,mansard roof, which was approved. Mr. Springer presented a letter from Mr. Solvie's insurance company noting a concern about the liability issue. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the screening was an issue at the last review. Discussion followed as to what was required. Mr. Willett noted that, due to air circulation, the DRB knows that the screening couldn't be enclosed entirely. Design Review Board Minutes-May 13,1997 7 Mr. Gleye offered photographs of canopies across the street from the Grantree. He noted that Mr. Springer has convinced him that the flat roof is better than a peaked roof. He noted that the lighting problem does need to be addressed. It would be an appropriate trade-off. He suggested leaving the canopy as it is. Chairperson Chisholm asked if there is a City ordinance to handle lighting complaints. Planner Patterson noted that there is. Chairperson Chisholm noted that the shielding of the lights is an important trade-off. Mr. Willett noted that this isn't what he'd visualized the last review. Mr. Springer presented snow on roofs at the Comfort Inn and the piles that were made when it fell off the roofs. He noted that while this amount of snow falling sixteen feet may not hurt a person,it could make a person mad. Planner Patterson noted that if the mansard roof isn't the issue, then maybe DRB could examine the issue of architectural compatibility. Mr. Springer noted that the strong horizontal lines aren't incompatible with the other structures. Chairperson Chisholm noted that at the last review he had suggested treating the metal band with a dark green paint, which would help tie it to the complex. Mr. Solvie noted that the CONOCO corporation has told him that he can't be a CONOCO dealer if he changes the beige stripe. Mr. Springer noted that there is something to be said for a structure that does the job it's intended to do. Chairperson Chisholm noted that corporations that put their foot down on color and design are often just trying to push a city around. If they don't want to do business on that corner,that is fine. The City of Bozeman shouldn't be pushed around by corporations. Mr. Gleye noted that the DRB could require the band to be painted green to match the rest of the roofs in the complex. Mr. McCrone concurred except for the painting of the band. He also complimented Mr. Springer for his well researched presentation. Mr.Noonan complimented the research that has been done for the liability issue. He noted that in the future, gas islands should be located to the rear of the main building rather than in the front. He'd like to see the canopy roof tie in with the rest of the complex. MOTION: Chairperson Chisholm moved that the DRB approve the horizontal canopy to exist without any additional pitched roof,but that the band of the canopy be painted a green to match the other roofs in the complex and that the lenses of the canopy lighting be modified so all light would be directed downward. Mr. McCrone seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. Design Review Board Minutes-May 13,1997 8 ITEM 5. INFORMAL REVIEW A. Brice Informal- (Patterson) 816 West Olive Street - An Informal Review for comments on converting a single family dwelling residence into a duplex, with a probable deviation. Mr. Gleye noted that he had to leave, however, he noted that he has the same concern about the next two reviews -the lot size isn't adequate for either of them. Mr. Brice joined DRB. Planner Patterson presented the project. He noted that the property is on an alley, but not on a corner lot. He also noted that deviations would be required to allow a second dwelling unit on a small lot and to expand the use of a non-conforming structure. He described the issues. Chairperson Chisholm asked the applicant for specific input he desired. Mr. Brice noted that he wanted input as to whether or not his drawings were adequate. Chairperson Chisholm suggested that he work with Staff for submittal requirements. He also suggested the applicant bring in photographs with the changes sketched on them. Mr. Brice explained the photos he had taken. He noted that the two egress windows would be located in the foundation and wouldn't disturb the siding. He also noted that the garage is already separated into two units and the former owner had framed in the walls in the downstairs of the house and installed a bathroom downstairs. Chairperson Chisholm noted that if the applicant had the confidence that he has expressed, then he should make a formal request. He noted that at this time there are no promises of approval. Mr. Brice explained the parking proposal. He noted that the garage needs new siding and shingles. He would like to keep the yard between the garage and house intact. He would be interested in putting an addition onto the garage. Planner Patterson asked if he intended to reside the house. Mr. Brice noted that he did not. He would maybe change the trim to a forest green. He asked what the next step is in the process. DRB noted that he should work with Staff for input on plans and application forms. B. Guttman Informal- (Strahn) 715 N. Grand - An Informal Review for comments on a proposed two-story addition in the rear yard,with a probable deviation. Mr. Guttman joined the DRB. Historic Preservation Officer/Planner Derek Strahn presented the application. He noted it is similar to the DeGidio proposal in that it is larger and taller than the existing house. He noted that it is different in that the addition is proposed for the rear of the house. He continued that the existing house is non-conforming, so a deviation would be required Design Review Board Minutes-May 13,1997 9 to enlarge it into a two family unit. Mr. Guttman noted that there is no access from the rear of the structure. Discussion ensued on the size of the lot, the log finish,the window locations, basic lines of the structure,parking, a shared driveway easement between the two lots Mr. Guttman owns,the possibility of a jog on the long elevation of the building, the deck, and roof types. Mr. McCrone asked about the square footage of the lot required for a two family dwelling. Planner Strahn noted that it is 6,600 square feet. ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Chisholm,noting that there was no further business to come before the DRB, adjourne the meeting at 7:00 p.m. (!T)vkl��-/r ��� Cliff hisholm, Chairperson Desi Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-May 13,1997 10