HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-24-1997 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1997
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairman Cliff Chisholm called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m.. He directed the secretary to
record the attendance.
Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Visitors Present:
Cliff Chisholm Rich Noonan Debbie Arkell Ron Kissock
Ed McCrone Kim Walker Andrew C.Epple Ken Richardson
Roger Cruwys Therese Berger Michael M. Seyl
Walt Willett
Mara-Gai Katz
Paul Gleye
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 10, 1997
Chairman Chisholm asked for corrections or additions to the June 10, 1997, minutes. MOTION:
Hearing none, he moved to approve the minutes as presented. Ed McCrone seconded the
motion, which carried 5-0. Chairman Chisholm noted that the Ganser Settlement Concept PUD
review will be opened and continued to the July S, 1997,meeting at the applicant's request.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEWS
A. Harrington's MaSP/COA#Z-9782 - (Arkell)
32550 E. Frontage Road
- A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to
allow the construction of 26,250 square foot distribution center and related site
improvements.
Ron Kissock and Ken Richardson joined the DRB. Paul Gleye arrived late to the meeting.
Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell presented the application,noting that the applicants,
upon further consideration, would like to construct the southern portion of the building
(approximately 30,000 square feet)now and reserve a smaller portion for a future expansion area.
In addition,they are proposing to make other modifications to the plans which the architect will
outline. She indicated that due to some misunderstanding concerning landscaping requirements,
the landscaping plan submitted will be significantly revised to ensure the number and types of
species planted will survive.
Planner Arkell noted the receipt of a letter from Neal Ganser, owner of adjacent property to the
Design Review Board Minutes-June 24, 1997 1
west, which expressed concern regarding lighting from any proposed signage,yard lighting, and
the hours of operation. She described the proposed wall-mounted sign on the west elevation
which would hang under the gable of the entry, and discussed the sign code provision which
requires signs that are illuminated outside of business hours to be turned off after 11:00 p.m.. She
relayed the discussion that occurred during the Development Review Committee in which the
applicant commented that upon further consideration of their business needs and in light of the
majority of transport activity occurring during the day,they are now contemplating reducing the
proposed parking lot and building wall lighting to only the access points to the site and the
entrances to the building. She added that the fixtures proposed have cut-off shields.
Planner Arkell read into the record a second letter from Mike and Barb Seyl,residents of the
Virginia Subdivision, which expressed concern regarding a buffer zone that was promised
between the subject property and the adjacent property to the east,the speed limit on East
Frontage Road, and truck traffic in what has been a quiet neighborhood. She explained that the
writers refer to promises made by Gene Cook 13 or 14 years ago when he originally proposed "R-
O" zoning on the parcel. Subsequently, he sold the property and the zoning was amended to
"BP". This applicant, she said, has proposed an artificial lot, which is permissible in the code, so
they will not have to landscape and irrigate the entire parcel. She stated that Rob Bukvich,
Montana Department of Transportation,has indicated that his department has no intention of
reducing the speed limit on Frontage Road. She added that the applicant has indicated at the
DRC meeting that only rarely will a truck access the site outside of normal daytime hours.
Roger Cruwys suggested that aspens and dogwood trees would do well in the area considering
the high water table. He also voiced a preference for evergreens instead of deciduous trees, given
the western exposure of the building. Ken Richardson noted the existing line of mature trees as
well as some saplings currently located under the proposed building footprint. He remarked that
his preference would be to pull the landscaping in groves to allow vistas to the building.
Chairman Chisholm questioned if there are requirements in the "BP" district to provide
landscaping or buffering between developments and adjacent uses. Planner Arkell asked Board
members to keep in mind the amount of land between the proposed building and the residences to
the east. She noted that the residents wanted the landscaping along the eastern property line, and
suggested that could be addressed at the time that portion of the 12 acres is developed. She did
note, however,that the Zoning Ordinance says the deciding bodies can require buffering between
residential and commercial uses by way of vegetative screening or fencing,in any zoning district.
Ken Richardson described the additional square footage of the building the applicant has recently
decided to proceed with, as well as building materials,mechanical equipment screening, and
signage. He described the applicant's recently proposed changes to the northwest corner of the
building for Board consideration. Due to concerns regarding snow accumulating along the
parapet, they wish to continue more of a shed roof form along both sides of the parapet at the
entrance to simplify construction and make the roof more water tight. This is also intended to
scale down the entrance to achieve a more uniform design. A discussion ensued regarding the
Design Review Board Minutes-June 24, 1997 2
proposed structure's visibility from the interstate.
In response to Chairman Chisholm,Ron Kissock remarked that the sign illumination is not a big
issue as the business is a daytime operation. The trucks are loaded in the early morning and
usually on the road by 7 A.M. and back between 2 and 4 P.M..
Ken Richardson indicated that the applicant also wishes to propose an alternate color scheme, and
would now prefer dusty blues and cream colors as opposed to the red and green scheme provided
in the submittal. Board members agreed that creams and blues would be preferable to the original
proposal. Several commended the architect for his innovative solution to mechanical screening.
Walt Willett commented that the proposed changes to the entrance would seemingly reduce the
main entrance and cause some confusion between the main entrance and the employee entrance.
Ken Richardson responded that the internal illumination in the main entrance vestibule and
storefront glazing and glass will make a clear distinction which is the main entrance.
Responding to Chairman Chisholm, Planner Arkell reiterated restrictions on hours allowed for the
illumination of signage, and indicated that there are restrictions on the number of milli-amps
allowed on signage with residential adjacencies. Chairman Chisholm concluded that the signage
does not seem obtrusive, and if it meets the code requirements,he doesn't see any reason to
impose further restrictions.
MOTION- Chairman Chisholm moved to approve the application as recommended by planning
staff. Mara-Gai Katz seconded the motion,which carried 6-0.
B. Ganser Settlement Concept PUD #Z-9783 - (Olsen)
32404 E. Frontage Road
- A Concept PUD Application for comments and advise on the development
of a townscape or "settlement" around an old farmstead.
It was duly noted at the beginning of the meeting that this item would be opened and continued,
at the applicant's request to the July 8, 1997, DRB meeting.
ITEM 4, ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Chisholm, noting that there was no further business to come before the DRB, adjourned
the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
r
Cli his holm, Chairperson
Design Review Board
Design Review Board Minutes-June 24, 1997 3