Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-12-1997 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY,AUGUST 12, 1997 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Kim Walker called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. She directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Paul Gleye (None) Debbie Arkell Don DeCossee Henry Sorenson Jody Olsen Jeff Kack Rich Noonan Mark Braungardt Ron Schmidt Kim Walker Derek Strahn Dan Kamp Roger Cruwys Carol Schott Jeff Ellis Ed McCrone Herman Chan Walt Willett Jeff Krogstad Mara-Gai Katz Ryan Smith Tom Milleson Joan Rudberg Nick and Chris Harris Glenn Oakes J Chapman Mack Pexton ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JULY 22, 1997 MEETINGS Chairperson Walker asked for corrections or additions to the minutes. Mr.Noonan asked that the third sentence under Item 1 of the July 22, 1997,minutes be corrected to read"Mr.Noonan asked to move the election of officers to the end of the agenda." MOTION: Mr. Noonan moved, Mr. Cruwys seconded that the minutes be approved as corrected. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Kack Lot 9, Evergreen Business Park MiSP/COA#Z-97112 - (Arkell) 1701 Evergreen Drive - A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 10,000 sq. ft. wholesale warehouse with accessory offices. B. Farquharson MiSP/COA#Z-97113 - (Olsen) 2325 Birdie Drive - A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to Design Review Board Minutes-August 12,1997 1 allow the construction of one structure for four warehouse/office units and an apartment. Chairperson Walker asked if there had been any requests to remove either item from the Consent Agenda. MOTION: Hearing none, Mr. Gleye moved, Mr. McCrone seconded, that the two items on the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEWS A. The Wok MiSP/COA/Dev#Z-97108 - (Braungardt) 319 North 7th Avenue - A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and a Deviation to allow the construction of a 1,411 sq. ft. addition on the west elevation and complete parking lot improvements. Tom Milleson,Ryan Smith, Herman Chan, and Don DeCosse joined DRB. Chairperson Walker introduced and welcomed the newest member of the Board, Henry Sorenson. Intern Planner Mark Braungardt introduced the application. (Mr. Willett arrived.) Intern Planner Braungardt noted that Staff recommends conditional approval with the condition that the current pole light is to be brought into conformance with code. He noted that the second condition listed on the Staff Report is no longer needed as the landscaping requirements have been met. Mr. Cruwys asked how the landscaping points had been met. Intern Planner Braungardt noted a tree that exists had been missed on the landscaping plan. Mr. McCrone asked if there were any other conditions. Intern Planner Braungardt noted there were not. Mr. Gleye asked Mr. Milleson about the expansion of the landscaping through parking spaces 39, 40, and 41 as suggested in the informal review. Mr. Milleson didn't remember agreeing to the elimination of any spaces as they are close on the required number of parking spaces. Chairperson Walker noted there were several suggestions made during the informal review and the applicant chose to landscape the area nearer to the building. Mr. Milleson noted they were trying to eliminate the landscaping in the vision triangle. Mr. Willett noted the new finish is being wrapped around to the other break points making an attractive, smoother transition than before. Mr. Sorenson concurred with Mr. Gleye's comments about adding landscaping in the specified parking spaces. He asked W. Milleson his opinion on adding that landscaping. Mr. Milleson noted that there are parking restraints imposed by the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance(BZO). Mr. Design Review Board Minutes-August 12,1997 2 Sorenson asked about the greenery near the back entry. Mr. Milleson noted it is a code requirement. He noted it also breaks the parking lot into islands rather than having a sea of asphalt. Mr.Noonan noted the application as submitted was great. Mr. Cruwys noted only two problems - 1)honey locust trees don't do well near asphalt or concrete as their roots break those surfaces, and 2)the one island has a lot of shrubs. He suggested replacing the honey locust trees with perhaps evergreen ash trees or linden trees. He suggested putting some of the shrubbery along the north side of the parking lot and along the dumpster, then stagger the trees. The rest of the project is fine. Mr. McCrone noted he was pleased with the use of the windows as suggested for the west elevation. He asked about the existing landscaping. Mr. Milleson explained it. Mr. McCrone commended the applicant for planting the large trees. He asked about the lighting. Mr. Milleson asked Intern Planner Braungardt if they are required to light the parking lot. Intern Planner Braungardt noted they are not. Mr. Milleson noted they would like to leave the existing light. If they have to remove it,they may just use some wall mounted lighting. He asked if they could leave the light in place. Intern Planner Braungardt noted the light would have to be brought into compliance with BZO as a part of the improvements. Discussion followed on ways to leave the light. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell noted there is a provision in the Code to allow a 20%increase in the allowable height. If more that 20%is needed, a variance application procedure would be required. Mr. Milleson noted they could lower the light. It was noted that, to meet Code,the light would be very near the roof of the building. Chairperson Walker noted that if the applicants remove the light,they are not required to light the parking lot. She suggested landscape lighting to illuminate the rear parking spaces. Mr. Chan asked if they could install short pole lighting in the landscaping. He was assured that he could provided the shielding met BZO requirements for shielding. Mr. Milleson asked if they decide to add lighting, could ADR Staff review and approve it. Chairperson Walker noted the lighting could be approved by Staff. Chairperson Walker asked if there were any variances. Mr. Milleson noted there was one for the building to encroach into the side yard. Chairperson Walker commended Mr. Milleson and the applicant for taking the suggestions from the informal review and incorporating them into this plan. Chairperson Walker summarized that there is only one recommended condition as condition 92 was to be omitted. She asked for clarification from Mr.Milleson on the lighting. MOTION: Chairperson Walker moved to recommend conditional approval of the application, with the conditions being: 1)the applicant will remove the existing outdoor lighting and any lighting to be added will be subject to the approval of ADR Staff, and 2)the honey locust trees along Villard Street be replaced with a more suitable tree. Mr. Gleye seconded the motion, which Design Review Board Minutes-August 12,1997 3 carried 7-0. (Ms. Katz joined DRB) B. Burger King MiSP/COA/Dev#Z-9796 - (Patterson) 1922 West Main Street - A Minor Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviation Application to allow a 594 square foot addition. Glenn Oakes and Jeff Ellis joined DRB. Due to the absence of Planner Dean Patterson, Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell presented the project and explained the three deviations, 1)to allow an oversized pole mounted sign,2)to allow a pole sign to exceed the height limitation by one foot, and 3)to allow the driving aisle to encroach into the front yard setback. She noted that the advertisement for this meeting only noticed the area deviation and not the height deviation. She will clarify with the City Attorney as to whether the deviations will have to be re-noticed to the public. Planner Arkell noted another deviation had been indicated for a 20%increase in signage, however in her calculations, she determined that the applicant has not used the signage allowed under the Bozeman Sign Code with the three wall-mounted signs proposed. Therefore, a deviation is not needed for increased signage. She noted that Administrative Design Review(ADR) Staff has recommended conditional approval of the application including the deviations. Planner Arkell noted that in a phone conversation with Planner Patterson,he suggested that the DRB recommend the approval of a full 20% deviation for the height of the sign to help reduce the visualization of a"lollipop"sign. Planner Arkell reviewed Staff's recommended conditions,noting that condition#1 is asking for more landscape plan information, condition#2 pertains to signage, and condition#3 was the standard modifications/building permit condition. Mr. Ellis distributed a landscape plan showing the modifications used to connect the planters to the building. He noted the fence is existing, though he had modified it to better match the exterior design. Chairperson Walker asked if the plans showing the jog in the building were the most current plans. Mr. Ellis noted they were. Mr. Oakes distributed a color palate for the building,noting the changes in color for various elements as per Burger King regulations. He also noted the plans for replacing the lighting inside and out. Mr. Gleye asked for the location of the existing pole sign and its height. He noted it appeared to be 30 feet plus in height. Discussion followed on the height and location of the pole sign. Mr. Gleye noted he was in favor of Planner Patterson's suggestion that a full 20%deviation for the sign's height be given. Mr. Oakes noted he wants the same signage as his competitor, McDonalds. Planner Arkell noted that McDonald's signage was done under a different sign code. She also noted that their sign is measured from grade, which is Main Street. Design Review Board Minutes-August 12,1997 4 Mr. Willett concurred with Planner Patterson's suggestion as he felt the sign would look odd if it were a short distance above ground level. Mr. Sorenson asked for an explanation for allowing deviations. Planner Arkell read from the Entryway Overlay regulations the criteria for allowing deviations. Mr. Oakes noted the changes made in the plan since the informal review to make the building/site more appealing. He noted the requirements from the corporation are more stringent than the City of Bozeman's requirements. Mr. Willett noted the improvements are great. Mr. Sorenson asked if the two-story playground will attract customers. Mr. Oakes noted he hoped it would. Discussion ensued on the mounting of the roof sign. Planner Arkell read the definition of Roof Sign from the sign code. Mr. Gleye noted the issue seems to be with the mounting of the sign on the mansard roof. Planner Arkell reiterated that the sign has to be architecturally mounted to integrate it with the roof, Mr. Cruwys asked what is missing from the landscaping. Mr. Ellis noted he interpreted the statements on landscaping to mean that what they install and what is existing have to comply with the BZO. Chairperson Walker summarized the deviations - 1) encroachment into the front yard setback, and 2)the area and the height of the freestanding sign, and 3) the size of the pole mounted sign. Mr. McCrone concurred with allowing the 20% deviation for the sign height. He noted that the applicant is not asking for the full 20% deviation for the pole sign size. He noted the deviations are off set by the lessening of the encroachment of the access into the front yard setback, He felt the deviations should be granted because the applicant has proposed an environment that is better than what exists. Mr. Gleye,Mr. Willett, Mr. Sorenson, Ms. Katz, and Mr.Noonan concurred. Mr. Cruwys noted he would change the honey locust trees proposed along Babcock Street and on the west side as their root system will break up the pavement and sidewalk. He'd like to add it as a requirement to condition#1. Chairperson Walker stated the applicant has agreed to comply with the code on the landscaping. Mr. Cruwys asked if the applicant is satisfied with a 20% deviation on the sign size. Mr. Oakes noted that he wanted a larger sign. Planner Arkell noted that a sign larger than the 20% allowed by a deviation would have to go through the variance process. Mr. Sorenson noted he would recommend more that the 20% deviation for the sign size. Mr. Design Review Board Minutes-August 12,1997 5 Cruwys noted he was interested in the process for the variance. Discussion followed on signage size and height. Mr. Oakes noted he needs a larger sign rather than a higher one. Planner Arkell noted there is a possibility for more signage on the walls. Chairperson Walker reminded DRB that they are to make a recommendation to City Commission on this application and its deviations. MOTION: Mr. Cruwys moved to recommend conditional approval for the deviations requested with condition#1 to state the applicant shall comply with BZO on landscaping and with the honey locust trees to be replaced with more appropriate trees, subject to ADR review; condition#2 to comply with BZO; and condition#3 as is. Ms. Katz seconded the motion. MOTION TO AMEND: Chairperson Walker moved to amend condition #2 to remove the second sentence and add clarification on the deviation on the height of the sign to allow a full 20% deviation. Mr. Cruwys seconded the amendment to the motion. Mr.Noonan disagreed with the addition of the extra height on the sign as he felt it would increase the "lollipop"effect. Ms. Katz asked how much height the 20% deviation would allow. Planner Arkell noted it would be 2.6 feet higher than allowed so the sign could then be 1.6 feet higher than the requested one foot height. Discussion followed on building code requirements for signs. MOTION TO AMEND: Chairperson Walker amended the amendment to allow a full 20% deviation on the area of the freestanding sign. Mr. McCrone seconded the amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment carried 6-2, with Mr. Cruwys, Mr. Gleye, Ms. Katz, Mr. Willett, Mr. McCrone, and Chairperson Walker voting for and Mr.Noonan and Mr. Sorenson voting against. The amendment to the motion carried 8-0. The motion carried 8-0. (Note:After the meeting,Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell more thoroughly reviewed the sign area allowances of the ordinance and determined that the interpretation in Planner Patterson's report was indeed correct. Thus, the deviation requested and noticed for a 20% increase in overall site sign area is necessary.) C. Pexton COA#Z-97107 - (Strahn) 318 North Bozeman Avenue - A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow a change in siding on the rear portion of the duplex from"dryvit" stucco as designated on the original Certificate of Appropriateness to pre-finished metal siding. Mack Pexton and J Chapman joined DRB. Historic Preservation Officer/Planner Derek Strahn presented the application. He noted the original project had been approved by DRB,therefore, the Planning Director had determined that the modification should also come before the Board. The issue with the modification is compatibility. He noted the front of the project is compatible with the neighborhood, it was the sides and rear that are very modernistic. He discussed changing the approved stucco siding to vertical metal siding. He noted Staff is suggesting a horizontal siding other than metal. In a conversation with the applicant today, the applicant suggested using a batten and wood lap siding. Planner Strahn reviewed the conditions. He asked DRB to allow the applicants explain their rationale for the changes. Design Review Board Minutes-August 12,1997 6 Mr. Chapman noted that maintenance was the main reason for requesting the change. The building is surrounded by trees and dryvit siding is more expensive than they thought it would be. They are proposing to leave the front house sided with dryvit and put metal siding on the rear house, with a combination of materials on the connecting section. He noted masonite siding is inferior, and board and batten lap siding would be acceptable. The problem with board and batten is it has to be painted periodically. He felt vertical siding was more appropriate. Planner Strahn asked if the vertical siding was being used to make the building look different. Mr. Chapman noted it was not really for that reason, however he didn't want the second unit to look like a ranch style house. He explained the breaks in the vertical siding and added that the long attached structure was created to satisfy zone code requirements. Discussion followed on the color palette of the buildings. Mr. Sorenson asked if most of the building would have dryvit siding. Mr. Chapman noted that if the rear of the building is metal, the south wall should be stucco where it wraps around the building. Discussion followed on the placement of the stucco or the board and batten. Mr. Pexton noted that changing the siding from stucco to metal was a cost issue,however, he feels it is a design improvement. Mr. Pexton continued that the front house is the"nice"house with the carriage house in the rear. He noted he wanted a maintenance free exterior. He continued that board and batten could work on one side, then, could later be replaced with a more permanent siding. Mr. Cruwys asked if Mr. Pexton would come back at a later date for modifications on the middle building. Mr. Pexton noted he probably would be coming back for modifications on it. Planner Strahn asked if dryvit is maintenance free. Mr. Chapman noted it is relatively maintenance free. Discussion followed on the siding alternatives, which Mr. Chapman summarized as 1)board and batten on the one wall, 2) a combination of stucco,metal, and board and batten, 3)metal as proposed. Ms. Katz asked which was more expensive -board and batten or metal. Mr. Chapman noted that metal is cheaper. Ms. Katz noted it was a handsome project. She continued that with the trees surrounding it,the rear building can hardly be seen from the street. She recommended stucco be placed around the front building and metal be allowed to be placed on the rear building. Mr. Sorenson noted that metal is a raw material and how it is applied determines its appropriateness. The design echoes the era of the neighborhood and has been treated very sensitively. Landscaping will soften the metal effect. It is a modern building fitting into a historic area. The detailing of the metal breaks up the verticalness of the project. Mr. Willett liked the effect of the dryvit horizontalness of the front building,however,board and batten didn't sound appropriate to him. He suggested dryvit on the front and connecting buildings with dryvit accents on the rear building. Mr. Gleye noted that recently the Board had difficulty with an all metal building, however,this is Design Review Board Ntinutes-August 12,1997 7 a different case due to the second building being off set by the larger, front building. He concurred with Mr. Willett on not using metal on the connecting building. Mr. McCrone concurred with Mr. Gleye and Mr. Willett. He noted the rear building is difficult to see from the street. He concurred with what the applicant proposed. He commended the keeping of the existing vegetation. He noted the building is in keeping with the north side of town as it is its own building and has its own identity. Mr. Cruwys liked the design and materials and concurred with Ms. Katz on the wrapping of dryvit around the connecting building. Mr. Noonan was happy with what he heard on the project and liked what he saw. Chairperson Walker concurred with Mr. Noonan, noting that the modification seems to fit the neighborhood better that the original proposal. MOTION: Mr. Gleye moved to approve the application with vertical metal siding with Staff condition#1. Ms. Katz seconded the motion. Mr. Noonan moved to amend the motion to add to condition#1 that a sample be submitted on the color and style for DRB review. Chairperson Walker seconded the amendment to the motion. Mr. Chapman described the metal as delta ribs with smaller ribs in between them. He assured DRB it wouldn't be an industrial pattern. Mr. Noonan noted his concern is with the pattern set by the metal. Mr. Gleye noted he is against the amendment as, in this case, there is no need for the architect to go to that level of detail. The amendment failed by a vote of 7-0, with Mr.Noonan abstaining. The motion carried 8-0. ITEM 5. INFORMAL REVIEW A. Harris/Kirk Building- (Arkell) 1530 West Main Street - An Informal Application for discussion and advice on a new office building. As the hour was getting late, Chairperson Walker, Ms. Katz, and Mr. Cruwys left the meeting. Vice-Chairperson Gleye presided. Chris and Nicholas Harris joined DRB. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell presented the proposal, noting the Harris's hope to move the red barn to Kirk Park as it was a part of the old Kirk farmstead. Vice-Chairperson Gleye noted that in informal reviews,the regular format isn't followed. He asked the members what they thought of the proposal. Mr. Willett liked what he saw. He noted the building picks up the theme of the downtown buildings. Mr. Chris Harris noted that the cottonwoods are not going to last much longer, however the maples are in good shape. Discussion followed on the existing parking and the need for an exit or turn around for fire trucks. Design Review Board Minutes-August 12,1997 8 Mr. Willett asked about the timing of the phases. Mr. Nick Harris noted the first building would be ready for occupancy in July of 1998 with the second building ready by July of 1999. Discussion ensued on the area in general. Mr. Chris Harris noted that the neighbors were excited about having a campus look to the area, stating the idea would fit well with what they plan in the future. Mr. Nick Harris noted the access to the second floor would be from the rear and an elevator would be installed. Mr. Sorenson asked about the location of the other entrances. He noted most people would experience the building from Main Street and suggested the entrance be located on the south facade and omit the north entry entirely. Mr. Chris Harris noted there might be one entrance on the north side for one tenant. Discussion followed on the entrances. Mr. Chris Harris noted that they may come back in the future with an application to apply brick facades to the little white building to make it fit the campus look. Mr. Sorenson suggested connecting the two white buildings. Mr.Nick Harris noted that they had tried that idea and others in earlier schemes and abandoned them for various reasons. Mr. Chris Harris noted their aunt had moved the White Chapel there in 1964. It was the first Catholic church in Gallatin County. He doesn't want to move it due to the extensive repair work he has done on it. Mr.Noonan noted he likes the concept of a campus. He didn't feel the two houses really fit that motif. He suggested relocating the two houses to continue the campus concept. Mr. Chris Harris noted it is not feasible to move the chapel now. Mr.Noonan noted it would take a lot of work to make the two houses homogenous to the area. Mr. Chris Harris noted the other two white buildings were built in 1877. He suggested covering them with brick and leaving the white chapel as it is. Mr. Noonan couldn't visualize the concept. Mr. Sorenson discussed the White Chapel and the two white houses. He suggested installing an open area around them for a pedestrian lane. Mr. Chris Harris noted the white building that housed the original Country Bookshelf will be taken away. Mr. McCrone noted he likes the mix of the old and new. The vegetation would diminish the mass of the new building. He doesn't like the idea of making everything look the same. However,the two new buildings would be a major improvement along West Main Street. Mr.Noonan suggested investigating the articulation for the front and rear facades of both buildings. Mr. Chris Harris noted that the first building has to be simple and within financial restraints. Then,if the first building doesn't become financially self-supporting,the second building won't happen. Vice-Chairperson Gleye noted that the Country Bookshelf building could really add to the site. The length of the proposed building is too long without being broken with some sort of articulation. He suggested enhancing the central bay and using lintels rather than arches as they are more in keeping with early Bozeman architecture. Mr. Chris and Mr.Nicholas Harris noted that the arches are in keeping with the period and they have photographs from California, Oregon, Design Review Board Minutes-August 12,1997 9 and Montana. Vice-Chairperson Gleye noted they wouldn't be in keeping with the styles in Bozeman during that period. Mr. Chris Hams asked if the DRB expects them to incorporate all the suggestions. They were assured they were not expected to do that. Mr. Sorenson noted there would be a lot of paving. Mr. Nick Harris noted they have backed off the parking spaces from the wood carvers building. He asked about using a smaller footprint and adding a third floor to the second building. Mr. Willett noted that would add delineation and definition. Mr. Sorenson commended them for thinking of all the aspects of the community. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being nolfurther7 usiness, Vice-Chairperson Gleye adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m. A Kim Walker, Chairperson, Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-August 12,1997 10