HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-13-1998 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
JANUARY 13, 1998
MINUTES
Members Present: Ed McCrone, Roger Cruwys, Bill Hanson, Paul Gleye, Walt Willett,
Kim Walker
Staff Present: Jody Olsen, John Sherman, Chris Saunders, Dave Skelton, Carol Schott, Andrew
Epple,
Visitors Present: Laurence Vosti, Gene Cook, Doug Rand, Marcia Youngman, Lowell Springer
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Kim Walker called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1997, MEETING
Chairperson Walker asked for corrections or additions to the December 9, 1997, minutes.
MOTION: Hearing none, Mr. Gleye moved, Mr. McCrone seconded, that the minutes be
approved as presented. The motion carried 6-0.
ITEM 3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Bridger Industrial Park, Ph. 2 MaSP#Z-97167- (Olsen)
2304 North 7th Avenue
- A Major Site Plan Application to allow the construction of a
second warehouse/office structure and related site improvements.
Chairperson Walker asked if anyone had requested this item be removed from the consent agenda.
The Secretary replied no requests have been received. MOTION: Mr. Gleye moved, Mr.
McCrone seconded, that Bridger Industrial Park Phase 2 Major Site Plan be recommended for
conditional approval to the Planning Board. The motion carried 6-0.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
A. Day's Inn COA#Z-97184 - (Sherman)
1321 North 7th Avenue
A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the addition of a
1000±lobby, new car canopy, and other improvements.
Doug Rand joined the DRB. Planner John Sherman presented the project. Mr. Rand noted the
owner wants to use the access point on Oak Street.
Mr. Hanson asked about staff s concern with the lighting standards. Planner Sherman noted that
Design Review Board Minutes-January 13,1999 1
the lights will shine into the residential yards across the street. He suggested using bollards and
lighting fixtures that direct lighting downward. Mr. Cruwys suggested up-lighting the building
from the ground. Planner Sherman noted the building is currently up-lighted on the north side.
Mr. Gleye noted that if the light is downward directed and the bulb doesn't fall below the shade,
he doesn't see any problem with it. Mr. Rand noted the bollards would be fine. Planner Sherman
noted he could support the 8 foot lighting standards in the protected areas indicated by Mr. Rand.
Discussion ensued on lighting bollards. Mr. Cruwys asked if the north entry will still be the main
entry. Mr. Rand noted they plan to use both the north and south entrances.
Planner Sherman noted that they are adding cupolas with lighted signage within them. Mr. Rand
noted that the owners are required to cut the signage about in half.
Mr. Willett asked if 8 foot standards were approved, would they need that many. Mr. Rand
noted he could use fewer. Mr. Willett noted that a combination of standards and bollards would
be better. Mr. Hanson asked if there are sidewalks proposed and the purpose of the lighting.
Mr. Rand noted there are no sidewalks planned, the purpose of the lighting is to draw attention to
the building along the Oak Street frontage.
Chairperson Walker asked Mr. Rand if he is willing to work with Staff on the lighting issues. Mr.
Rand noted he is willing to do that. Mr. Hanson noted that for the amount of money being spent
on lighting, a more subtle landscape lighting would perhaps be more attention getting.
Discussion ensued on the roof materials, colors and lighting. Mr. Gleye noted the color of the
roofing is not a problem for him. Planner Sherman noted he is mostly concerned with the roofing
materials.
Mr. Hanson noted that a metal roof would be attractive, however, asphalt shingle done well,
would also be appropriate. Mr. Rand noted he suggested strong colors so he could back down.
Mr. Hanson noted that fewer light standards would make the metal roof affordable and
recommended using it. He noted the roof forms will bring people's attention to the building.
Planner Sherman noted he could support browns or tans for the roofing.
Mr. McCrone concurred with Mr. Hanson. Mr. Cruwys would rather see the metal roof,
however. He noted the cupolas are very spiry, he'd like to see them be more squatty.
Mr. Willett concurred with the use of a metal roof as it would be more compatible with the
structures in the area. He disagrees with painting the brick. He suggested choosing siding that
would have a blending effect with the brick.
Chairperson Walker is concerned with what is going to happen and what may happen. It isn't
clear to her what is proposed. Mr. Rand noted they are proposing to paint the brick, repair the
shingles, re-roof with asphalt shingles or possibly metal roofing. He noted the owners want a
newer, contemporary look. Mr. McCrone asked if the cupolas are definitely being done. Mr.
Rand noted the one at the front of the building is proposed. The one at the rear may not be done
Design Review Board Minutes-January 13,1998 2
depending on the costs. Mr. Gleye suggested continuing this proposal pending submittal of a
more specific proposal. He had no comments on the architectural aspects. Mr. Hanson noted the
height of the cupolas may be a problem, however, to accommodate the signage, they may need to
be that height. Mr. McCrone and Mr. Cruwys concurred with Mr. Hanson.
Mr. Gleye moved to continue this application until more definite description of the roof materials,
siding, lighting, and colors is submitted, and that the Board is in general agreement with the
architectural features. Mr. McCrone seconded the motion, which carried 6-0.
C. River Run Concept PUD #Z-97178 - (Saunders)
Manley Road
- Concept Planned Unit Development Application for a mixed-use planned
unit development on roughly 89 acres located on what has been formerly referred
to as the Manley Property.
Larry Vosti joined the DRB. Planner Chris Saunders presented the application. Mr. Vosti gave a
philosophical view of what he's trying to accomplish: a mixed-use environment with a variety of
housing units for a work-play-live area. He envisions the area to be tied together with a system of
trails and bike trails with gazebos beside two of the ponds for educational uses. He continued that
he is proposing a small senior citizen center, SFR's, townhouses, and building pods for single
family homes. He noted the M-1 area will be buffered from the residential area by wetlands and
the senior center.
Mr. Gleye asked for the location of the offices. Mr. Vosti noted they will be in the M-1 area.
Planner Saunders noted the zoning has been approved subject to annexation. In response to Mr.
Hanson's question on the use of the building pods, Mr. Vosti noted they are proposed due to the
wetlands in the area and are for SFR's.
Mr. Cruwys asked if Mr. Vosti is locked into the plan as shown, to which he replied he is not.
Mr. Cruwys noted that DRB has a role in the land planning. Mr. Vosti explained the transitioning
of the concept. Discussion followed on the contours shown and the location of the senior center.
Mr. Cruwys presented a suggestion for land uses in the project. He explained his rationale. Mr.
Vosti noted that he has tried to put the more dense housing near the open space to give the
feeling of space. Discussion continued on the two proposals.
Mr. Willett noted there is a sudden, stark change from the SFR's in the RS zoned area to the
SFR's in the R2 with its higher density. Chairperson Walker noted that the plan doesn't seem to
match what he is proposing. Mr. Vosti further explained his idea. Mr. Cruwys wants to have a
hand in the concept, and not have a predetermined plan presented.
Mr. Hanson commented that these are tiny building lots, to which Planning Director Epple noted
that they are the standard size for SFR's in the City of Bozeman R2 zoning district. Mr. Hanson
continued that he feels the density will be extremely tight and that, when driving passed, will seem
like three different neighborhoods. He concurs with the winding and the connecting of pathways
Design Review Board Minutes-January 13,1998 3
presented at the beginning. Chairperson Walker asked about the flexibility of lot size in the AS
zoning. Mr. Hanson concurred with Mr. Cruwys's feeling that the density could be handled in a
different manner.
Mr. Gleye noted the plan has interesting possibilities. He is concerned about the rigidity of the
subdivision. He concurred with all 8 points that Staff presented in the memo.
Mr. McCrone concurred with Planner Saunders's identification of issues. He asked Mr. Cruwys if
he came up with the same density as Mr. Vosti, to which he responded he had. Mr. McCrone
concurred that the lot, block portion in Block 2 doesn't seem to fit.
Mr. Willett noted he likes the concept except for the lot, block patterned area. He considers it a
blight on the development.
Chairperson Walker noted she looks at a proposal for its marketability because she is in the real
estate industry, and, the lot, block pattern is not always desirable.
D. Stoneridge
Lowell Springer joined DRB to explain the progress he has made on the proposal. He noted he
will be submitting a proposal for the north and south ends. He noted the rest of what they wanted
to do will have to be achieved with a MPA. He is uncomfortable with the architectural guidelines
being for the whole development, however, he feels that he should rewrite that portion of the
application using verbal descriptions of the qualitative guidelines that are non-specific without
using sketches. He's hoping for something that is flexible enough to allow for continuity and
quality in the architecture changes that will occur as the development builds out.
Chairperson Walker is concerned that the whole land use may not fit with the Master Plan. Mr.
Hanson concurred and noted that the first proposal lacks the cohesive threads to tie it all together.
Mr. Springer noted that several changes have been make since the meeting a month ago. He
noted that the streets are mostly already dedicated and the infrastructure is in them. He indicated
where the roads are that have utilities in or along them. Discussion followed on the amount of
distance shown on the scale of these maps. Mr. Cruwys noted that the City may not want the
guidelines to be so rigid that there is no room for variety.
Mr. Springer asked if what he has stated is what he understood were the suggestions from the late
December meeting. Mr. Gleye noted he needs to clearly establish what exists, the connections
and linkages within the site, and state the architectural character of the development. He asked
that Mr. Springer present the compilation to the DRB for discussion.
Mr. Springer noted that he resented not being asked to the early December meeting to give his
views. Planner Skelton noted that because the project was distributed in early December for the
DRB members to review during the next month and was not for discussion at that meeting, Mr.
Springer was not notified of the meeting. He continued there should be another Informal Review
Design Review Board Minutes-January 13,1998 4
before the DRB before the actual submittal is presented. Chairperson Walker noted another
informal would be beneficial to him and the Board. Mr. Cruwys asked him to identify the themes
for the whole project.
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
Kim Walker, C irperson, Design Review Board
Design Review Board Minutes-January 13,1998 5