Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-22-1998 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Kim Walker called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. She directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Ed McCrone Mara-Gai Katz Debbie Arkell Paul Sanford Henry Sorenson Bill Hanson Dave Skelton Terry Threlkeld Kim Walker Roger Cruwys John Sherman Kim Just Walt Willett Carol Schott John Baker Glenniss Indreland Lavina Chadbourne Tom Mannachreck Aida Murga Deborah Sills Carol Dietrich Dennis Rowe Mark Nelson Steve Eshbaugh Carolyn Euchrn Bruce Erickson Marcia Youngman Richard Zelver Gene Mickolio Lowell Springer Jerry Locati ITEM 2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 25 AND SEPTEMBER 9, 1998 Chairperson Walker asked for corrections to the minutes. Mr. McCrone moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Sorenson seconded the motion, which carried 4-0. ITEM 3. CONSENT ITEMS A. Zelver Fence COA/Dev#Z-98155 - (Skelton) 131-B Alderson Street - A Certificate of Appropriateness Application with a Deviation to allow the construction of a 6 foot high wood fence and amend a previously approved PUD to allow fences. (This item was removed from. the consent agenda and was discussed second during the Design Review Board Minutes-September 22, 1998 1 reviews.) Nick Zelver joined the DRB. Senior Planner Dave Skelton presented an overview of the cover memo addressing the 8 letters received on the application. Two letters were against the project and six were for the project. He noted that a COA had been issued, with it's approval revoked when it was brought to the attention of the Planning Office that the fence was within the 35 foot stream setback of Matthew Bird Creek. He noted there are three issues. 1) Do individual condo owners have the right to construct a fence on the common property adjacent to their condo? He noted Staff has reviewed Mr. Zelver's fence application and have found that it does not conflict with the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance. 2) Does the fence obstruct the view shed? Planner Skelton noted he and the Historic Preservation Officer walked the trail yesterday and found the fence would not obstruct the view shed. 3) Could a private fence be constructed in the development? Staff found that the fence could be constructed to maintain the residential concept of the development with consent of the Homeowner's Association. He noted Staff is recommending conditional approval with 4 conditions. He noted the approval by the homeowner's association has been received. Chairperson Walker asked if the issues brought up by the letters have been covered by his conditions. Planner Skelton noted they have. He suggested the DRB act upon the COA independent of Final Site Plan and Final Plat Approval of Alderson Condos, not if the fence meets the conditions of the PUD. Mr. McCrone asked for the exact location of the end of the fence. Planner Skelton indicated its location. Mr. Sorenson asked who is responsible for the bridge going across the creek. Planner Skelton noted it is part of the Galligator Trail, therefore, it is the responsibility of the City. Mr. Zelver noted the Principal of Longfellow School has recruited several fathers of school children to rebuild the bridge and has gathered the materials for the project. Planner Skelton noted it will require a 310 permit and Approval by the City. Mr. Sorenson asked if the fence is located 25' from the creek. Planner Skelton noted that several people have asked that the trail be delineated better. He continued that some of walkers feel that they are walking through someone's backyard. Mr. Willett asked for the purpose of the 35' stream setback. Planner Skelton noted it is to discourage construction of structures in close proximity to water coursesd. He noted that a fence because it is a structure is not generally allowed within the setback, however, this fence is perpendicular to the creek and encroaches only on one point. Mr. Willett noted the fence continues to Mr. Zelver's property line. Mr. McCrone asked if Mr. Zelver could feasibly install the fence within the six months time period stated on the Certificate of Appropriateness. After Planner Skelton explained the status Design Review Board Minutes-September 22, 1998 2 of the COA, Mr. McCrone asked if Mr. Zelver was satisfied with the conditions. Mr. Zelver noted the conditions are acceptable. Chairperson Walker asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this project. Upon seeing several hands raised, she noted that no more than twenty minutes would be allowed for public comment, and asked each speaker to limit their discussion to two minutes. She then opened the meeting to Public Comment. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Carol Dietrich, 120 East Story Street, noted that the applicant needs to supply an adequate bridge. She continued that the people at Longfellow School are interested in placing the bridge farther down the stream. She noted the Final Site Plan was not available when she went down to the City Planning Office. She asked Planner Skelton if the FSP was available. He noted the FSP is not applicable to this project, however, it is available. Mrs. Dietrich noted the location of the open space is of interest to the public. Ms. Dietrich noted she has researched the PUD and told of her concerns and gave reasons for her opposition of the fence. Chairperson Walker noted that the DRB is not looking at the open space issues of the PUD. Steve Eshbaugh 709 South Tracy, noted he walks the trail everyday and feels it is very uncomfortable for him to literally walk through their backyard. He noted he is in support of the fence as it will delineate the trail and gives him some feeling of privacy as he walks the trail with his dog. Glenniss Indreland, 135A East Alderson Street, the same condo complex, noted she fully supports the installation of the fence. END OF PUBLIC COMMENT: The Chairperson closed the Public Comment time. Planner Skelton noted the DRB is the advisory body to the City Commission. He noted if the DRB needs to delay its action to research the letters, he suggested a special meeting. Mr. Sorenson asked if there was any potential for the area of the quaking aspens being developed. Mr. Zelver noted that particular area is part of the open space for the development. Mr. Sorenson asked Mr. Zelver how he determined the location for the fence. Mr. Zelver explained it was to provide privacy for his family and walkers of the trail. Mr. Willett noted that the DRB is acting on the encroachment of the fence into the stream setback. Planner Skelton further explained the history of the fence issue. Mr. Sorenson asked Planner Skelton if the DRB could condition the application to provide the Design Review Board Minutes-September 22, 1998 3 footbridge. Planner Skelton noted that the bridge is an off-site improvement and was not provided with the site plan review of the project. Chairperson Walker noted that in the past, those kinds of conditions were inappropriate. Mr. McCrone noted that Mr. Sorenson's idea of give and take when considering a deviation is accurate. He noted the fence is a well built. He supports Staff's recommended conditions for conditional approval. Mr. Sorenson noted the fence is nicely handled and aspens will probably grow on the back side of it. He noted that the fence does go right to the bank of the stream. He suggested a shorter fence or one with openings in it so the view of the pond is available. He noted he supports the application, however, the DRB would not encourage another fence be built on the other side of the public path. Mr. Willett noted that in general, he wouldn't have a problem with the fence. He does have a problem with the amount of fence being requested. He is inclined to vote for the fence, but against the 25 foot deviation. Mr. Sorenson noted that Mr. Willett has convinced him to be against the deviation. Chairperson Walker noted she supports the deviation and the recommended conditions. She is not in support of Mr. Sorenson's recommendation to condition the building of a fence on the other side as it is not a part of this application. She thanked the public for coming to the meeting and voicing their opinions in letter and orally. She summarized that Mr. Willett is against the deviation and Mr. Sorenson wants the statement about not fencing the other side of the path. Chairperson Walker noted there is a split decision on the deviation. Mr. Willett noted the fence on the other side of the path is outside this application. Mr. McCrone concurred. Chairperson Walker noted the DRB is recommending approval for the fence and recommended conditions with a vote of 4-0, and a split decision on the requested deviation with a vote of 2- 2. B. Three Rivers Transfer Station CUP/COA/Var#Z-98156 - (Arkell) 8606 Huffine Lane - A Conditional Use Permit with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Variances to allow the expansion of an existing non-conforming use for a solid waste transfer station. (This item was removed from the consent agenda and was discussed first during the reviews.) Design Review Board Minutes-September 22, 1998 4 Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell presented the application and reviewed the recommended conditions. Chairperson Walker noted she had removed the item from the consent agenda as she was unsure of the proposed color of the addition. Planner Arkell explained the color will be the same as the existing building. Mr. Sorenson stated this is a generic building, but it is well screened from the entryway. He noted if this were the primary building, he would have a different attitude toward it. He concluded that this is an appropriate building for the use and siting. Chairperson Walker noted she was satisfied with the color. MOTION: Chairperson Walker moved to approve with staff conditions as they are proposed. Mr. McCrone seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEWS A. Holiday Stores MiSP #Z-98152 - (Skelton) Northwest corner of Durston Road and North 19' Avenue A Minor Site Plan Application to allow the construction of a one- story convenience store, car wash, and fuel dispensing station. Lowell Springer, Gene Mickolio, and Mark Nelson joined the DRB. Senior Planner Dave Skelton presented the application, noting the DRC gave the application conditional approval this morning. He noted that signage is very limited in this zoning district. He suggested the pole sign be modified into a monument sign - condition #1. He noted that no comments have been received from the public on this proposal. Mr. Willett asked if a height of 11 feet will still be allowed for the monument sign. Planner Skelton noted that will be determined using the grade of North 19`" Avenue. The DRB discussed the canopy design. Chairperson Walker had a concern with the non-existence of an approved PUD to weigh this project against. Planner Skelton discussed the preliminary plat approval. Chairperson Walker was concerned that the design elements of the double frontage of the building haven't met the approved guidelines. Planner Skelton explained how the guidelines have been met. Mr. Springer noted that the intention of the developer of Stoneridge is to provide a buffering towards North 19`' Avenue. He noted the entrances and facades are addressed internally. He described the landscaping proposed around the sign. Mr. Sorenson asked about the finalized PUD. He noted he is concerned that the project doesn't meet the guidelines. Planner Skelton noted that with smaller projects such as Minor Site Plans, the DRB should rely upon Staff to review the projects against the guidelines. Mr. Sorenson asked if the Master Plan for a project could be sent out with the materials for the project. Planner Skelton noted that the DRB is relying on Staff to review a project against the zone code, and this is a similar situation. With regard to the P.U.D. Guidelines, Mr. Sorenson noted that he would like to review a project against the architectural landscaping Design Review Board Minutes-September 22, 1998 5 guidelines. Chairperson Walker noted that the DRB is reviewing only the project, the whole PUD has already been reviewed. Discussion continued on the project compared to the whole PUD and how the guidelines are being met. Mr. Sorenson noted this is a stand alone project. He concurred with Staff's comments on the pitch roof for the canopy. Mr. McCrone clarified the landscaping required in condition #2. Planner Skelton explained further. Mr. McCrone asked about the recommendation for the sign to be a monument sign. Planner Skelton noted it is to enclose the sign and give it a sense of a base. Chairperson Walker asked Mr. Springer if there wasn't a greater buffer required than that shown on the plans. Mr. Springer noted that there is no place where the buffer is less than 50 feet from the property line and in several instances it exceeds that. Discussion followed on the type of fence to be installed. Chairperson Walker asked about the construction of the canopy. Mr. Springer noted that he has had several discussions with the applicant and he has agreed to modify his color scheme to match the colors of the StoneRidge PUD. Mr. Nelson noted the colors and detail of the facia of the canopy. Mr. Springer noted the canopy will have a similar look as the store. Discussion continued on the color palette. Mr. Springer noted that he is not in favor of the pitched roof on the canopy as the snow will slide from it and be a liability. Mr. Willett noted his questions have been answered. Mr. Sorenson had no further questions. Mr. McCrone is waiting for the applicant's view of conditions 1 and 5. Mr. Springer noted that the most exposure they have is the corner view. He noted that the side disappears quickly as one drives north on 19th. He noted that the developer has offered to single-handedly install the pipeline. He noted he will give each one of the DRB members a set of guidelines. He noted that they do have to rely upon Staff to the comparisons. He continued he and his client have no problem with of any of the conditions except for the required pitched roof on the canopy. Mr. Nelson noted that this fuel station will be different from all others in the nation. He appreciates the final product. Chairperson Walker noted she supports all staff conditions, however she would like to hear from the rest of the Board on the canopy. She'd like to see additional landscaping on the northeast corner of the structure. She suggested changing condition #3 to add the above that would effectively break the view from North 19th Avenue on the northeast corner. Mr. Willett noted the building design is a good beginning for the whole development. He noted the solid fence around the mechanical equipment, he is concerned with the materials to be used. Mr. Springer noted it will be of Dryvit. On the landscaping on the NE corner, he continued, he is at the mercy of the development of the next lot. He concurs with Chairperson Design Review Board Minutes-September 22, 1998 6 Walker's suggestion, and he noted he was prepared to match the EFIS and install a sloped roof, however, there is so huge an expanse, the drainage from it would be a problem. He suggested having the facia match the building; he could accept a flat roof. Mr. Sorenson noted he is in favor of Staff's and Chairperson Walker's recommendation with the exception of the canopy. He feels a pitched roof over piped columns would appear top heavy. He suggested the continuation of the facia materials of the main structure to the canopy, he would support a flat roof. He noted the Dryvit fence will have an impact point. He suggested an alternative. Mr. McCrone concurred with the rest of the Board's comments. He is concerned with a pitched roof on'the canopy. MOTION: Chairperson Walker moved to recommend approval of the application with staff conditions changes. Condition #1- the freestanding sign be changed to a monument and match the building materials, condition #2- the applicant will install a solid wall to match the building materials of the main structure, condition #3- the applicant plant additional landscaping on the NE corner of the structure, leave condition #4- as it is, and condition #5- eliminate the first part, starting with typical... and add- "the materials for the canopy shall match the materials of the main structure with the Holiday Store colors". The motion was seconded by Mr. McCrone. Mr. Sorenson noted condition #5 should have the following added - "the dimension and detail of the facia of the canopy shall match the main structure". Chairperson Walker moved to amend the motion to the effect of Mr. Sorenson's suggestion to add to condition #5. Mr. McCrone seconded the motion. Both the amendment and motion passed 4-0. B. Castlebar PUD #Z-98144 - (Skelton) 1200 North 25h Avenue - A Planned Unit Development to allow the development of a 72 unit apartment complex and related site improvements on a 6.748 acre tract of land. Lowell Springer, Kim Just, and Tom Mannachreck joined the DRB. Senior Planner Dave Skelton reviewed the application and the recommended conditions. He noted there have been no written comments received on this project. Chairperson Walker asked if Planner Skelton has done the calculations on the open space. Planner Skelton explained the calculations. Chairperson Walker asked why there is no secondary access and if the DRC addressed that issue. Planner Skelton reviewed the concerns of the DRC on this issue. Mr. McCrone asked if it was a CUP because of the zoning. He asked if there had been a precedent set to allow a lessening of the open space requirement. Planner Skelton noted the application is a CUP due to the zoning and the open space requirement has been met. Design Review Board Minutes-September 22, 1998 7 Mr. Willett asked if the landscaping on the south side is to buffer future development on that side. Mr. Sorenson asked about the need for a secondary access. He asked about the 30% open space requirement, and did he do the calculations. Planner Skelton noted he has questions on some areas for the applicant. Mr. Springer noted that he had taken the suggestion of the DRB to heart for the rearrangement of the structures. Mr. McCrone concurred with staff's recommendations. He appreciated the applicant's taking prior DRB suggestions and incorporating them into the current plan. Chairperson Walker reviewed the changes made to this plan from the prior plan. Mr. Sorenson asked about the plans for the pedestrian path. Mr. Springer noted it will probably follow along North 27th to connect to the private trail that exists in Willowbrook. He noted they intend to work with the homeowners across the street to develop it. Mr. Willett asked if the applicants have any concerns with the conditions. Mr. Lowell, in reference to the hedge going down the middle of the development on the plans, noted he would rather put in clumps in various locations, not in a straight line. Chairperson Walker asked if the applicant has met the landscaping criteria for this location. Planner Skelton noted the landscaping criteria is met for the 6 units shown, then asked Mr. Springer if the application is for the approval of 6 or 12 units. Mr. Springer noted they are looking for approval of all 12 units. Chairperson Walker doesn't feel the Iandscaping shown is adequate for the project. Planner Skelton noted that an assumption made by staff was the landscaping in phase 1 will be similar to that in phase 2. He asked the applicant if the Iandscaping will be reflected in phase 2. Discussion followed on the landscaping criteria being met in both phases. Mr. Willett noted he would be comfortable with Staff's review of the landscaping of phase 2 and approve the whole project now. Chairperson Walker noted she would add that an exact replica of phase 1 would be installed in phase 2. She added that the trail should be addressed so it connects this subdivision to those on the north and west. Mr. Willett moved to conditionally approve the application for 12 units with staff recommendations altering condition #2 to read a mixed of hedge of coniferous and deciduous trees, adding to condition #5 to read the balance of the project landscaping not shown on this plan be reflected on phase 2 with the approval of Planning Staff, with a public access trailway linking the north and south. Chairperson Walker seconded the motion. She added in condition #2 "5 landscaping pods in addition to what is shown on the plans be added to Phase 1 and then to be reflected in Phase 2; added to condition #5 that the trail be a finished and durable, as per the Parks Department. Mr. McCrone seconded the amendment. Both the amendment and the motion carried 4-0. Design Review Board Minutes-September 22, 1998 8 C. American Bank West Expansion MiSP/COA #Z-98158 - (Sherman) 1612 West Main Street - A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the renovation of the existing Petcetera building and the construction of a 1,954 sq. ft. addition for offices, storage and indoor parking. Jerry Locati joined the DRB. Planner John Sherman presented the application and reviewed the recommended conditions, noting there has been no public comment received. Mr. Sorenson asked what is happening with the south side of the proposed site. Mr. Locati noted that the fence proposed about a year ago had been shortened to allow the 5 parking spaces of the neighbors. Mr. Sorenson asked about the fence on the southeast corner. Mr. Locati explained. Mr. McCrone noted this project reflects the features of the adjacent bank. Mr. Locati noted the height and finishes are being duplicated . Mr. McCrone noted he concurred with Staffs comments. MOTION: Chairperson Walker moved to approve the application with staff conditions and the addition of staffs additional condition#3 pertaining to the sign calculations. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCrone and carried 4-0. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Kim Walker, Chairperson, Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-September 22, 1998 9