Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-27-1998 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD JANUARY 27, 1998 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Kim Walker called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. and asked the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Mara-Gai Katz Paul Gleye John Sherman Doug Rand Ed McCrone Debbie Arkell Ann Arbor Miller Roger Cruwys Andrew Epple Doug Sandiland Kim Walker Derek Strahn Lyle Cusson Walt Willett Randy Miseph Bill Hanson Jerry Gaston Henry Sorenson ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 1998,MEETING Chairperson Walker asked for corrections or additions to the minutes. Chairperson Walker amended page 4, paragraph 5, to read: "Chairperson Walker noted she looks at a proposal for its marketability because she is in the real estate industry. She also noted that the lot, block pattern is not always desirable." Mr. Cruwys amended the first paragraph on page 4 to delete last part of the last sentence from"too much for ..." and add"could be handled in a different manner." Mr. Willett moved to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. McCrone seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. ITEM 3. CONTINUED PROJECT REVIEW Day's Inn COA#Z-97184 - (Sherman) 1321 North 7th Avenue - A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the addition of a 1000+ square foot lobby, new car canopy, and other improvements. Planner John Sherman introduced the changes made to the site plan since the last meeting, noting that Staff supports the changes if the applicant provides details of the lighting fixtures to the Planning Office for approval. He reviewed the facade changes, noting that Staff supports them. In reviewing the sign changes, he noted they would require a variance, with approval by the City Commission. He reviewed the proposed conditions. Mr. Sorenson noted that the adjacent buildings have high elements, and referred to the photographs. He asked if the cupola would be open with signage contained within it. Planner Sherman stated that the adjacent building was reviewed under a different sign code. Planning Design.Review Board Minutes-January 27,1998 1 Director Andrew Epple concurred and noted that the current code doesn't allow signage above the principal roof line of the building. Mr. Willett asked if the pole sign is on Days' Inn property or someone else's. Planner Sherman noted it is on Days' Inn property. Mr. Doug Rand and Randy Miseph joined the DRB. Mr. Cruwys asked if there is only one cupola proposed. Planner Sherman and Mr. Rand noted that there are two shorter cupolas proposed. Mr. Miseph noted there would be two-sided signs in the open cupolas. Discussion followed on the principal roofline and the cupola on the adjoining property. Chairperson Walker asked if there have been any other lighting details submitted and if DRB would see the project again or would the Planning Staff approve the lighting. Planning Director Epple noted it would depend on what the DRB determines in the motion. Chairperson Walker asked if the applicant was satisfied with the conditions presented. Mr. Miseph noted that they are, however the owner is looking for a permanent variance for signage, due to the history of the development of the adjoining properties. Chairperson Walker noted that this Board doesn't approve variances, the City Commission has that responsibility. Mr. Miseph noted that the property is obscure from North 7', and without signage, the property is lost. Chairperson Walker asked why there are two conditions that deal with signage, conditions#3 and #8. Mr. Sherman noted that the proposed signage doesn't meet sign code, and the two conditions bring it into conformance with a condition of the Certificate of Appropriateness being that the applicant provided a detailed signage sheet. Mr. Willett asked how far out of compliance the signs are. Planner Sherman explained how the square footage of the freestanding sign area could be increased by setting the sign back on the lot, noting the sign is currently 42'high and is allowed to be 18'high. Mr. Rand noted the sign has 105 sq. ft. currently. Planner Sherman noted the sign cannot exceed 48 sq. ft. Discussion followed on the allowed height and square footage of the sign. If moved west on the property, it could be about 88 sq ft and 32 feet high. (John, I'm not sure this last sentence is accurate.) Mr. McCrone asked Planner Sherman about the total square footage of all the signs. Planner Sherman noted they are within the total allowable signage, however, the applicant needs to provide exact signage square footage and location. Mr. Willett asked how the applicant feels about the monument sign, to which the applicant noted that if they get the cupola signs, they won't need the monument sign. Mr. Hanson noted he likes the new reduced-size cupolas. He is concerned about painting the brick, noting that he feels that the existing color of the brick adds to the building. He continued that maintenance wouldn't be a problem if the brick is left in it's original state. He prefers the applicant use the colors as submitted. He noted that the Day's Inn is undersigned compared to Design Review Board Minutes-January 27,1998 2 their neighbors. He commended them for deciding to install the metal roofs. Ms. Katz had no comments. Mr. Sorenson noted that they make a good argument for the increased signage;however, he noted that nothing happens to signage until improvements are proposed for a structure. He noted that while the competition hasn't made changes in their signage, it isn't good policy for the City to not take advantage of a situation when it comes up. He noted that they are at a disadvantage, he suggested building an architectural feature using the half circle and rectangle and direct exterior lighting towards the cupolas. He noted the pole sign should be brought into compliance. He noted the colors of the brick are in keeping with the color palette, however, it can be painted as long as the color is compatible with the rest of the structure. Mr. McCrone concurred with Mr. Sorenson's comments. He noted the applicant has complied with most of DRB's concerns. He noted that some signs in that area are so high they are difficult to see. He concurs with Mr. Hanson on the roof signs. Mr. Cruwys noted that he likes the roof line, cupolas, and lighting, and has no opinion on painting the brick. On the height of the pole sign, he concurs with Mr. Sorenson, however, he understands the owners are trying to make their property more visible. Mr. Willett noted the cupola signage would be fine as they have been proposed. The pole sign should be lowered, however, the square footage of it might be livable. He suggested lowering the sign 8' and noted it would still serve its purpose. He likes the design of the building and the reduction in the size of the drive-through. Chairperson Walker asked if the applicant decided to paint the brick, would they have to come back before DRB with their plans. Planning Director Epple noted it probably would be brought back to the DRB due to the discussion thus far by the Board. Mr. Miseph noted the owner feels that the brick color is distracting on the whole. Mr. Willett noted that on the present scale, it may be,however, the hip roofs and the cupolas will add color and interest to the project also. Planning Director Epple suggested the DRB act upon the rest of the project except the repainting. Chairperson Walker commended the owner for wanting to improve the property. She concurred with Mr. Willett on reducing the height of the cupolas. She is in favor of the square footage and the lowering of the pole sign. She likes the brick as it is,however, if the owner wants to paint the brick, that would be alright with her. She likes the addition of the cupolas. Mr. Rand noted he agrees with lowering the pole sign. He asked if this Board will give a recommendation to the City Commission. Planning Director Epple suggested making the motion clearer by breaking out each of the signs, with a recommendation for each. Mr. Miseph noted that the height of the sign is for visibility from the off ramp. He concurred that the sign loses visibility as one nears it. He reiterated that the height is a critical aspect. Design Review Board Ni linutes-January 27,1998 3 Chairperson Walker moved that a recommendation of approval be sent to the City Commission, with conditions 1-9, adding support for the variances for the cupola signs to remain as proposed and the pole sign square footage remain the same with the height reduced a minimum of 8'. Mr. McCrone seconded the motion. Mr. Sorenson noted that the variance for the pole sign is a fair proposal. He'd like to see all signs in the City brought into compliance. The motion carried 6-1 with Mr. Willett, Mr. Hanson, Ms. Katz, Mr. McCrone, Mr. Cruwys, and Chairperson Walker voting aye and Mr. Sorenson voting nay. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW Magic Diamond Sign Modification #Z-9603A- (Arkell) 1601 West Main Street - A Modification of an approved Conditional Use Permit Application to allow the removal of the existing neon sign and install individual channel letters reading "CASINO". Jerry Gaston, Gaston Engineering, and Lyle Cusson, Town Pump, Inc.,joined DRB. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell presented the request for modification of a previously approved conditional use permit. She noted the sign that was originally approved was up about a year, but the business owner determined they wanted to change it. The sign company conferred several times with her, she added, and she informed them the CUP would have to be modified for the new sign, as the sign was an important part of the original CUP. She noted that, unfortunately, the sign company installed the sign without the modification and without an electrical permit. Ms. Arkell indicated staff is in support of the modification, as the sign is in conformance with the Sign Code, and if the modification is approved, the business owner must obtain an electrical permit, if one is needed. Mr. Willett noted that if the sign is in compliance, he has no comments, as did Mr. Cruwys and Mr. McCrone, Ms. Katz asked why the sign was put up before approval was given. Mr. Cusson explained it was a snafii by the sign company. Planner Arkell noted there were several sets of faxes sent back and forth. Ms. Katz noted it is difficult to review something that is already installed, however, the new sign is a great improvement over the original one. Mr. McCrone moved to recommend approval of the application as submitted by staff to the City Commission. Mr. Willett seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. ITEM 5. INFORMAL REVIEW Crystal Bar Figure #I-9762A- (Strahn) 123 East Main Street - An Informal Review for advice and comment on the proposed addition of a seven(7) foot molded figure on the roof. Design Review Board Minutes-January 27,1998 4 Doug Sandiland joined the DRB. Historic Preservation Officer/Planner Derek Strahn gave comments on the new information, including that Staff has concluded that if the figure is visible from the street, it will draw attention to the business and, therefore, would meet the City's definition of a sign. If the figure is not visible, it would be considered a sculpture. He read the definition of a sign, noting that Staff has determined that there may or may not be artistic qualities, however, there is a concern with a roof mounted sign. He reviewed the Secretary's Standards recommendations. Staff is concerned about the precedent of adding an animal that does not relate to the architectural character of the Main Street Historic District. Mr. Sandiland noted that he used the drawing presented for the horse Informal application, cut out the horse, and glued the pig on the platform on which the horse had been mounted. He noted if it is a sign, he could add a tray and bottle in the upraised hand. Planner Strahn suggested locating the pig in the beer garden as there it would become a sculpture. Mr. Sandiland noted he thinks it would look sort of cute. Mr. Willett asked about the pedestal that is shown, and if it projects from the building. Mr. Sandiland noted it would not project from the roof. He noted the pig is 5 W tall. Discussion followed on the condition of the pig. Repairs may be necessary Mr. Hanson asked if any of the Board members has seen the pig. Some noted they had seen it several years ago. Mr. Hanson asked if it will add to the business or street scape, or what is its purpose. Mr. Sandiland noted it would add nothing. He'd like to cut down the tree in front. He just wants to have fun. Planner Strahn asked if he would be happy with the pig 32 feet back, against the beer garden. Mr. Sandiland noted that he would. Mr. Willett noted he could see it being used if it had a tray with a bottle and a glass on it. It would then be considered a sign. Mr. Cruwys noted the pig is not to scale and is actually shown too large. Mr. Sandiland noted he had shrunk it, cut it out, and pasted it onto the previous diagram. Mr. McCrone asked how the signage would be calculated. Chairperson Walker asked if he would be willing to paint the jacket and tie with colors that would match the theme. Mr. Hanson noted the pig would denigrate the cornice existing on the building now. The signage needs to reflect the image of the downtown Bozeman. He has a problem with the proposed pig being located on the top of the structure. He feels it would be more appropriate on ground level or in the beer garden. Mr. Sorenson concurred. He admires Mr. Sandiland's spirit, however, he doesn't feel there is room for it on the front of the building. It could be appropriate in the beer garden. Design Review Board Minutes-January 27,1998 5 Mr. McCrone noted he concurs with what has been said as did Mr. Cruwys. Chairperson Walker noted it would be more fitting if located in the beer garden. For the Betterment of the DRB: DRB By-Laws Chairperson Walker asked for comments on the DRB By-Laws by fax or e-mail. She will make revisions and bring back for approval, however, if there are a number of changes, the document could be discussed at the 24th of February meeting. Chairperson Walker asked if the print on Planner Sherman's report bothered anyone else. Consensus of the DRB was they would like to see the print and format on all Staff Reports be standardized. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Kim Walker, Chairperson, Design Review Board Design Review Board Mnutes-January 27,1998 6