Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-1997 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY,JULY 8, 1997 Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Roger Cruwys Kim Walker Jody Olsen Rob Dougherty Walt Willett Mari-Gai Katz Christopher Williams John Beyer Rich Noonan Dean Patterson Neal Ganser Ed McCrone Carol Schott Jean Ganser Paul Gleye Jeff Ellis Michael Stabile Cheri Ladd Bill Hanson Verne House Nancy House Bill Htmt ya r,so vt Jim Drummond ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Paul Gleye was selected to chair the meeting. Chairperson Paul Gleye called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m.. He directed the secretary to record the attendance and asked all in the audience to sign the Attendance Roster. ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 1997,MEETING Unavailable at this time. ITEM 3. CONTINUED PROJECT REVIEW A. Ganser Settlement Concept PUD#Z-9783 - (Olsen) 32404 E. Frontage Road - A Concept PUD Application for comments and advice on the development of a townscape or "settlement" around an old farmstead. Neal and Jean Ganser joined DRB. Planner Jody Olsen reviewed the application and noted that all concept plans are reviewed by DRC and DRB. Chairperson Gleye asked the applicants if there was anything to add to the Staff report and if they would address the issues in it. Mr. Ganser noted the concept is for a neoclassic, old fashioned development, similar to what old towns used to be. The last phase of the development would be a small inn similar to the Sacajawea Inn,but smaller in scale. He noted the location of the future warehouse on the eastern boundary. The architecture is proposed to be modern western,but not a tourist trap, frontier Design Review Board Minutes-July 8,1997 1 town,or a New England town. He noted they plan to use shingles and tin as much as possible, with porches and overhangs, false fronted buildings, and high ceilings. He elaborated on the uses of the shops area. Mr. McCrone asked if the barn,bins and silos are existing. Mr. Ganser noted the barn exists,the bins and silos are replicas. Mr. McCrone asked if the Corbond warehouse and office building exist. Mr. Ganser noted that the barn is currently the warehouse,the office building is the old KXXL radio station, and the warehouse would be a new structure. Mr. Cruwys asked Planner Olsen if the open space shown meets the criteria. She noted they are short. Mr. Ganser noted that the setbacks required for the corridors is new information to them as of this morning. He continued that they feel they have had 100 feet of property taken from them. He noted the designer started the plans using a 25 foot setback on the Highway 10 side, which is not included in the open space requirement. Mr. Cruwys asked if there are any setback requirements for this zoning. Planner Olsen noted there is generally a 20 foot front yard setback in an M-1 zoning district,however since this property is located within two Class 2 entryway corridors,the required setback is 50 feet for each of them. She also noted that due to the proposal being a PUD,the requirements could be relaxed. Mr. Ganser noted that they counted the space/setback to the south as open space because it is a natural waterway. Chairperson Gleye asked what document requires the 25 foot setback. Planner Olsen noted the Bozeman Municipal Code requires it. She clarified that the Entryway Corridor Guidelines required 50 foot setback. Mr. Ganser noted that he was referring to the 50 feet on each of the north and south ends. He also noted that the Highway Department now considers US 10 to be a Frontage Road and it will always be one. Mr.Willett noted it was a commendable plan,the applicants seem to have given consideration to adjoining properties. Mr. Ganser noted they had met with Ken LeClair several times and together decided that a shared access between them and Harrington's would not benefit either of them. Mr.Willett asked if the Gansers will be developing these properties or would they be selling them. Mr. Ganser noted they plan to build and maintain ownership, then lease or condominiumize in the future. He doesn't want to see the property piecemealed out. Chairperson Gleye asked Planner Olsen if the DRB would see this project in the preliminary stage, which she affirmed. Mr. Cruwys asked about the cottage sites. Mr. Ganser noted they plan to pick several classic farmhouses that depict the early days and duplicate them. He doesn't plan for them to be huge monstrosities. He noted this plan is for mixed uses. Mr. Cruwys concurred with Mr. Willett about the incongruity of the buildings if the property is subdivided and piecemealed out. He noted he is concerned the residential similarities for the office uses could be a problem. The ones Design Review Board Minutes-July 8,1997 2 that exist in town have happened during transition of residential uses to business uses as the town has grown. He was also concerned about the number of trees shown on the concept plan compared to what will actually be planted. Mr. Ganser noted that he plans to have the trees just as dense as shown as his family likes trees. Mr. McCrone asked about the scale of the area. He noted it was difficult to relate the size of the buildings to the scale. Mr. Ganser noted that the diagrams in front of the DRB are reduced to %Z of the original diagram. Mr. McCrone commended the applicants on the design. Mr.Noonan noted he is pleased with what he sees. He noted they should recognize that different requirements could come into play as time goes on. It may be easier to address the setback issues, for example, now. He commended the greenery areas. He was concerned about the success of the venture as it is "a long bicycle ride" out there. Mr. Ganser noted that Mr. Hanson of Taylor Architects rides his bike to work nearly everyday as does another lady. Discussion ensued on how to lure clients to the site. Mr.Noonan asked about the phasing. Mr. Ganser explained, then noted they had received good news from DRC last week. He will be allowed to proceed with his plans 500 feet into the property and begin development. Chairperson Gleye asked why they are proposing 35 foot streets. Mr. Ganser noted it is to allow for parallel parking. Chairperson Gleye noted that parallel parking is not efficient along short, narrow streets. Mr. Ganser noted they had looked at different parking patterns most of which would be disastrous to the economy. He would rather have diagonal parking,but that isn't possible. Chairperson Gleye noted he didn't feel this was analogous to a City street. He noted to have the pedestrian walkways in the street was unsafe. He suggested putting the shops in the center with parking around the exterior. He also noted the maintenance shed may be out of place in this development. He asked how many trucks enter the Corbond business area. Mr. Ganser noted only two trucks a week, as they have warehouses in other communities where they store most of their products. Chairperson Gleye noted the use of the Corbond business may not be the best use of that part of the property. He suggested a different use might be compatible with the rest of the development. Mr. Ganser discussed the ideas of the DRB. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. Bozeman Furniture Sign COA/Dev#Z-9794- (Williams) 511 North 7th Avenue - A Certificate of Appropriateness Application with a Deviation to allow a proposed freestanding sign to exceed the permitted 32 sq. ft. limit by 6 sq. ft. Planner Christopher Williams noted that John Beyer was in the audience. He presented the project,noting the deviation is for exceeding the sign limitation by six square feet. He noted they plan to install 152 square feet of landscaping around the sign and the building. Mr. McCrone asked if this is an existing business, which Planner Williams noted it is. Mr.McCrone asked if Design Review Board Minutes-July 8, 1997 3 they were putting in the landscaping to get approval of the extra six feet of signage. Planner Williams noted that wasn't true as the landscaping was part of the sign code. He continued that this will be an improvement to the site. Discussion ensued on the landscaping to be added. DRB members concurred that more complete landscaping plans would have helped. Chairperson Gleye noted that with what was presented,the landscaping could be well or poorly done. Mr. Cruwys noted that since this is a developed site, it is difficult to add landscaping. He felt that what is proposed would do the job. MOTION: Mr. McCrone moved, Mr.Noonan seconded,to approve the application unconditionally as recommended by Staff. The motion carried 5-0. B. Stabile MiSP/COA/DEV#Z-9793 (Patterson) 514 North Church Avenue - A Minor Site Plan Application and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations to allow the construction of a second dwelling unit and related parking improvements. Rob Dougherty and Michael Stabile joined DRB. Planner Dean Patterson noted the letters,which were on the table for the meeting,that have been received on this project and asked DRB members if they would like a few minutes to review them. They reviewed them. Chairperson Gleye asked for the width of the lot, which Mr.Dougherty noted was 55+feet. He quoted the square footage in response to the Chairperson's question. Planner Patterson reviewed the application and the Staff Report. He noted that Condition#1 deals with the restoration of the existing house and shed. He noted that DRC had problems with the narrowness of the alley to be used as access. He reviewed the other condition. Mr. Stabile noted that he planned to repair and paint the house. Mr. Cruwys asked why this was a minor site plan review. Planner Patterson explained it is a detached second dwelling unit. He explained the duplex situation and the ADR review compared to this application. He noted that the Planning Director has made this policy regarding two detached dwelling units on one lot. Mr. Dougherty noted the lot was 10,600 sq. ft. He continued that the "Statement of Dissent" was typed by one of the neighbors and distributed in the neighborhood. Some of the letters are from people who are not immediate adjoiners and won't be affected. Mr.Willett asked for further clarification of the minor site plan requirement for this project. Planner Patterson noted the Zone Code specifications. Mr. Cruwys asked for the DRC interpretation of the application. Planner Patterson noted the narrowness of the alley and the sloughing of snow into the alley from the bus barn were among Design Review Board Minutes-July 8,1997 4 their concerns. Mr. Dougherty noted he plans to visit with the bus barn owners to remove the snow. He noted that Mr. Stabile has also indicated he is willing to hire the plowing of the alley. He continued with an explanation of the uses of the alley right-of way by the neighbors. Mr.McCrone asked about the new"Additional Dwelling Unit"(ADU)provisions in the Zone Code. Planner Patterson noted the ADU has to be 600 sq. ft. or less and was generally created for a single family situation. Discussion followed on the height of the proposed building compared to the height of the bus barns. Mr. Dougherty addressed each of the comments on the"Statement of Dissent" and rebutted each of them. He noted that quality developments increase property values, and if the neighbors met, they could improve the alley and all build a second dwelling unit in their backyards. Mr. Dougherty explained the method for taking the shine from the corrugated metal with acid washes. He noted that the long narrow building fits the neighborhood, and noted that they are willing to use an asphalt roof if the metal gets to be too much. He described other architectural details on the proposed structure. Chairperson Gleye asked Planner Patterson if there was an issue with the water/sewer in that area. Planner Patterson noted the it wasn't an issue with DRC that morning,however, since the letters have come into the Planning Office,he planned to discuss the issue next week with DRC. Vern House, a member of the audience, asked for the width of the new structure. Mr. Dougherty noted the main building is 14 feet wide with an outward jutting of 4 feet on each side. Mr. Cruwys noted he understands the neighbors' concern. He noted that only one neighbor will really be affected, the one to the south, which is probably Mr. House. He noted the"horse is already out of the barn". He would require that the existing structures be restored and rehabilitated, however, the proposal is appropriate to the site. Mr. Willett noted there were two factors, 1)the length of the lot being twice the length of a normal lot, and 2) if the size of the proposed house is compatible on this lot. He noted he saw no problem with a second dwelling unit on a lot of this length. Mr. McCrone asked how much the lot is lacking in width for the second dwelling unit. W. Dougherty noted it is short only 4.7 feet. Mr. McCrone concurred with the statements made by Mr. Willett and Mr. Cruwys and noted that the DRB is mostly concerned with design review. He noted that Mr. Dougherty had tried to meet the suggestions made at the informal, and that he liked the dulling of the finish of the metal. He suggested using the asphalt shingles to lessen the use of metal. Mr.Noonan echoed Mr. McCrone's and Mr. Cruwys's comments. He could visualize the concerns the neighbors have. He noted he was comfortable with the applicants willingness to Design Review Board Minutes-July 8,1997 5 mitigate the existing problems with the other two structures. He disagreed with the asphalt shingles and felt the roof should be metal. He also disagreed with the filigree on the balcony railing as it adds a totally new element. Mr. House, from the audience, asked how the new structure would fit in with the historic homes in the neighborhood. Chairperson Gleye noted that with the depth of the lot,the placement of the structure is appropriate. He noted the overall footprint of the building is harmonious with the neighborhood. With the architecture, he had two concerns - 1)the balcony, and 2)the use of stucco. He asked if the stucco siding could be done with wood if only on one side. Mr. Dougherty noted they are very close to the bus barn,but they were willing to move the building closer to the bus barn to mitigate the neighbors' concerns. Chairperson Gleye noted if they would address the condition of the alley, that would probably help also. Mr. Dougherty noted the improving of the alley would be one of DRC's conditions. Chairperson Gleye noted that if corrugated metal siding was well done,it could be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Cruwys asked if there should be a consensus on the roofing materials before a motion is attempted. Mr. Dougherty noted they would rather install asphalt shingles. Mr. Willett noted the asphalt would be better for the residence. Mr. Cruwys and Chairperson Gleye concurred. Planner Patterson asked for a consensus on the balcony railing. Mr. Dougherty noted it could be straight bar or might have some design to it. He used the pattern he'd seen on a railing in another neighborhood. He suggested the final balcony design be approved by ADR. MOTION: Chairperson Gleye moved the application be recommended for conditional approval with an addition to condition#1 reading, "The plan of the restoration of the house and shed be ADR approved,"#2 - "The roof will be dark asphalt shingles", and#3 -"The projection of the south side shall be of wood rather than stucco". He added a recommendation that the design character of the balcony be reconsidered. Mr. McCrone seconded the motion. Mr. Willett had a concern with the space between the structure and the alley. He moved to amend the motion to add condition#4"The new structure is to be moved as far north as possible and still avoid the gas line". Mr. Cruwys seconded the amendment to the motion. The amendment to the motion carried 5-0 and the amended main motion carried 5-0. ITEM 5. INFORMAL REVIEW A. First Security Bank#I-9735 -(Patterson) 208 East Main Street - An Informal Review for advice and comments on the replacement of the front canopy. Bill Hanson and Jim Drummond joined DRB. Planner Dean Patterson presented the proposal. He noted the proposed canopy was picking up the curvilinear design on the rear of the building and the drive-up in the rear. Design Review Board Minutes-July 8,1997 Mr. McCrone asked if the digital read-out on the sign will be removed. Mr. Drummond noted it would not. Mr. Hanson explained the history of the building,noting that the owner is sensitive to the historic significance of the building to the down town area. He discussed the rear entry addition. He noted the banding that appears in the rear of the building disappeared towards the front and they planned to wrap it around. They felt that tying the new rear entrance of the building to the front was important. They also wanted to weather-proof the front entry and make the front entry more visible and inviting. Mr. Cruwys noted he liked what they were proposing. He was in favor of the removing of the large planter and replacing it with two smaller planters with benches in between. (Mr. Cruwys excused himself from the meeting.) Mr. Willett asked if the new canopy would be attached to the main building. Mr. Hanson noted it would be attached at the same point as the existing canopy,yet hide the attachment point. Mr. Willett noted that either canopy would stick out from the concrete panels. It would give the look of more strength. Mr.McCrone noted he liked the addition of columns and the changing of the lighting would tie in better with the existing lighting in the area. He noted it made the structure look more like a bank. Mr. Hanson noted the canopy will be sloped, cowled, and lit from below. Discussion ensued on the look of the canopy,the distance it would protrude form the bank,the shape of the canopy top, and the shape of the lights. Planner Patterson noted that if the signage is changed, it would be required to meet the sign code. Mr.Noonan discussed the lighting,noting that the lighting currently created conflict. He suggested they be aware of how the lights would interact with signage. Chairperson Gleye suggested they not do the proposal as the building was an outstanding example of the 1960's architecture. He noted it was included in his new book because of it. He continued the canopy was in keeping with the building as a whole. He suggested maintaining the integrity of the building including the canopy. He noted that restoration of the existing canopy and addressing the lighting by restoring the tube lighting would bring about the continuation of the structure being a beautiful building. Mr. Hanson noted that the entry doesn't function as they want it to as the entrance was not well defined. Discussion followed on the architectural styles of the 50's, 60's, and early 70's. Chairperson Gleye suggested doing minimal work to the canopy and trying to make the canopy fit with a redesigned entry. Mr. Drummond noted that as a business man,he realizes there comes a time to change the building to meet the needs of business and current trends. He noted also that it is of the 1970's style. Chairperson Gleye suggested that if the canopy is changed, then he suggested redesigning Design Review Board Minutes-July 8,1997 7 the front facade of the bank. Mr. Hanson noted that the rear addition tied in with rear facade. Mr.Noonan that he stood by what he had said prior,but they have the opportunity to grow with the business. They were in a unique position to keep the rear and front entries different. He suggested keeping the integrity of the time frame on the front facade. Planner Patterson noted that people who look at buildings would appreciate it,but the average person sees an older building that looks like it needs maintenance. It doesn't really need maintenance,but could be cleaned. He suggested cleaning the enamalized trim also. Chairperson Gleye noted that the election of officers will be held at the next meeting. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Being there was no further business, Mr.Noonan moved, Mr. Willett seconded,the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried 4-0, and the meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. Paul Gleye,D si Review Board Chairperson Design Review Board Miautes-July 8,1997