HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-1998 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1998
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson 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
Mara-Gai Katz Roger Cruwys Debbie Arkell Diane Stewart
Kim Walker Dave Skelton Ron Schmidt
Bill Hansen Therese Berger Carroll Henderson
Walt Willett Dave Stewart
Henry Sorenson Marcia Youngman
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 1998
Chairperson Walker asked for corrections or additions to the minutes. Mr. Hanson moved, Ms.
Katz seconded, the motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. DMC, Inc. Office Complex Minor Site Plan/COA#Z-98201 - (Arkell)
2413-2417 West Main Street (proposed)
- A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to
construct a three phase, six building office complex within the Festival Square
P.U.D.
B. MacDonald Office Building Minor Site Plan/COA#Z-98199 - (Skelton)
804 North 191h Avenue
- A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to
construct a 1,456 (footprint) sq. ft., two-story office building.
Mr. Hansen moved, Mr. Willett seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda items. The motion
carried 5-0
ITEM 4 PROJECT REVIEWS
A. Henderson Concept PUD #Z-98191 - (Berger)
1005 East Griffin Drive
- A Concept Planned Unit Development proposal for the development of
roughly 500 storage units and 28 mobile home lots on approximately 18.5 acres
located north of Griffin Drive, between Bridger and Griffin Drives. (Continued
from November 24, 1998)
Design Review Board Minutes-December 8,1998 1
Associate Planner Therese Berger presented the application, noting the project is to meet all of
the PUD review criteria applicable to all development. She noted that the applicant has indicated
he may drop the residential portion.
Chairperson Walker asked what the probability is that the residential portion will be dropped.
Planner Berger noted the applicant isn't here to explain or comment on it.
Mr. Willett asked if the residential portion is in the Entryway Overlay District. Planner Berger
deferred to Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell who noted since the property is one parcel,
the whole parcel would come under the guidelines.
Mr. Sorenson noted the Staff memo is very well laid out. He noted the property is difficult to
develop and meet the requirements of a PUD. He stated it is a "schizophrenic"property with the
two uses proposed. He asked if the roadway goes all the way through the property. Planner
Berger noted it doesn't. Mr. Sorenson noted the project feels awkward and looks substandard.
Ms. Katz summarized the comments from the last meeting. Mr. Carroll Henderson joined the
DRB. Therese summarized the discussion thus far. Mr. Henderson noted he can't do a residential
use as he can't hook up to the sewer. He noted that preliminary discussions with Staff indicated
that the residential use might be possible on the east side of the property. He described his plans
and problems thus far. He noted the best time to dig the ponds is now, before spring and a higher
water table. He described the ponds he plans, with the approval of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Planner Berger noted that sewer studies to indicate sewer capacity need to be done.
Chairperson Walker asked Mr. Henderson if he is dropping the residential portion of the
application. Planner Berger noted that there are conditions relating to public safety and other
needs prior to placing mobile homes on the lots. Mr. Henderson noted that the impact fees will
prevent him from building the residential portion.
Mr. Willett asked if the proposal is for a whole parcel of storage units. Chairperson Walker
suggested doing the parcel in phases and build the storage area first, then, with a Concept PUD,
he could apply for a zoning PUD to re-zone the residential portion.
Mr. Hanson noted Mr. Henderson is at the beginning of the process. He suggested Mr.
Henderson build the storage units with a Major Site Plan, then work on the residential use.
Chairperson Walker noted that Mr. Henderson could install the ponds and take a chance that they
will be approved by the deciding body. She suggested getting advice from the Planning Office as
to whether or not the ponds might be approved if they are done beforehand. It was noted that Mr.
Henderson would have to design the project around the ponds. Ms. Walker suggested that Mr.
Henderson submit an informal review for a major site plan. The rest of the Board concurred.
Mr. Henderson noted he would agree to having comments on the storage unit area.
Mr. Willett asked if the 8 foot setback is not adequate, and why a 20 foot setback is required.
Design Review Board Minutes-December 8,1998 2
Planner Berger noted the Code requires the 20 foot setback due to the adjacency to the residential
use. Mr. Henderson distributed photographs of his property and his home. He asked if the R-S
zoning requires a 20 foot setback. Chairperson Walker noted that if he disagrees with the
setback, he can address it through a major site plan with deviations.
Mr. Willett asked Planner Berger if the Entryway Corridor Guidelines require the 20 foot setback.
Planner Skelton explained the criteria. Mr. Willett noted if the setback has to be 20 feet, that
changes the design of the project. He asked about the setback on the stream side of the property.
Planner Berger noted there is a 100 foot setback from the East Gallatin River, beginning at the
high water mark, to any structures. She noted there is a 35 foot setback from the other streams
on the property. Mr. Willett noted that the current design has stretched the project to its the
limits due to the required setbacks. He noted that the changes in shape and the locations of the
storage units helps the view of the area. Discussion followed on the 100 foot setback and its
beginning point.
Mr. Sorenson asked what percentage of open space will be required with a PUD. Planner Berger
noted it would be a minimum of 30%. Mr. Sorenson expressed concern with the access, the
amount of paving Mr. Henderson plans to do, and moved that more green space will be required.
Mr. Sorenson asked Mr. Henderson if he wouldn't have a better return if he developed the parcel
so people could enjoy the East Gallatin River. He suggested residential, office park, something
that would use the amenities of the river.
Mr. Hanson concurred and noted the potential for this parcel is huge. Mr. Henderson noted he
doesn't see anything else going in there due to the sewer "restrictions". He commented on the
requirements of the City Engineer's Office.
Ms. Katz noted there will have to be a redefinition of the development in the area of the elbow of
the river to meet the setback requirements. She would like to see a breaking of the long expanse
of wall along the elbow of the property. She suggested that Mr. Henderson use a Major Site Plan
to develop this parcel, and commented on other concerns.
Mr. Hanson noted he concurs with Mr. Sorenson,however, he doesn't see the DRB endorsing the
reduction of the setback areas. He noted though the ponds could be beautiful amenities, they are
not accessible to anyone. He commented on the location of the gas line through the property.
Ms. Katz noted that a trail or walkway was discussed at the last meeting and asked Mr.
Henderson if one would be included. Mr. Henderson noted the trail would go nowhere.
Chairperson Walker noted she can see how the M-1 and green shape can co-exist, however, the
sewer will be a problem. She noted a buffer can be installed between the residential and storage
areas, and suggested a high, solid wall between the two uses. She encouraged Mr. Henderson
marry the amenities and justify the use of the property. She noted the residential use is probably
not a good use for this parcel. Mr. Hanson noted there are other industrial uses that could be
done. He noted there are options to the sewer problems.
Design Review Board Minutes-December 8,1998 3
Mr. Henderson said that it is difficult to build offices on this parcel as most of the offices are
going in on North 19th Avenue and he doesn't think an office use would be marketable. He noted
that he feels the 100 foot setback is in error. Planner Berger noted that if Mr. Henderson
subdivides the property into residential lots, then he has to comply with the current Subdivision
Regulations which require a100 foot setback. Through a major site plan review, the zoning
ordinance minimum setback of 35 feet would apply. Mr. Henderson noted he will have to wait
another year as it is too late to start digging. He noted the soil is topsoil about 3 feet and under
that is river gravel. He described the pond to the east.
B. Color World Printing Major Site Plan/COA#Z-98202 - (Berger)
Boot Hill Court, Lot, 1, Tract 7, Gardner Simmental Plaza
A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to
allow the construction of a 11,700 sq. ft. (ground floor)printing facility with a
3,500 +/- sq. ft. mezzanine.
Diane Stewart and Ron Schmidt joined the DRB. Planner Therese Berger presented the
application, noting she has reviewed the blueprints as submitted and not the color rendition the
applicants are displaying. She noted the DRB will make a recommendation to the Planning Board
who will make the final decision on the application. She summarized Urban Designer/Planner
John Sherman's concern with the omission of the greenway corridor trails system and the color
palette. She noted the color palette originally proposed is different than that shown today. She
noted there has been no public comment on the application.
Chairperson Walker asked why Planner Sherman presented comments. Planner Berger noted that
Planner Sherman did the architectural review, using a free form rather than the format the DRB
has seen in the past.
Ms. Stewart asked what the trail will connect to and what will it serve given the location of the
Anderson building. Senior Planner Skelton commented and explained the trails system, indicating
that other options are being discussed and considered with that property owner. Ms. Stewart
asked who is liable for accidents on the trail. Planner Skelton noted it will be a public liability and
not the liability of the property owner.
Mr. Sorenson noted the landscaping plan is well done and adequate. He asked how the fumes and
exhausts will be handled. Mr. Schmidt noted they haven't crossed that hurdle yet. Ms. Stewart
noted the roof unit will be pocketed on the roof. She noted the rest of the mechanical equipment
will be on the ground and well screened. Mr. Willett noted the roof pocket will change the
roofline. Mr. Sorenson asked about the south elevation, the blank wall, and what materials will be
used. Mr. Schmidt noted it will be Dryvit. Mr. Sorenson noted it is a straight forward building,
and he had no problems with the lines, materials, colors. He was concerned how fumes will be
vented. He suggested venting out the gable end and not break the roofline with a pocket.
Mr. Willett noted the project is commendable. He could see no problems with it.
Design Review Board Minutes-December 8,1998 4
Mr. Hanson noted he concurs, and the building is done very well. He suggested locating the air
handling units on the ground. He complimented the site access and landscaping as being a very
positive thing.
Chairperson Walker noted a concern about the elevation facing North 19'h Avenue. She noted
generally people along the entryway corridor consider the elevation facing that street a front
elevation. She suggested enlivening the elevation with windows and other treatments.
Mr. Hanson noted the rendering isn't exactly clear. There is a bump out to the street to break that
facade. Chairperson Walker suggested planting the biggest large trees they can find to help break
the west facade.
MOTION: Chairperson Walker moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the application with
Staff condition#1. The motion carried 4-0.
For The betterment of the DRB.
Marcia Youngman noted that they didn't appoint anyone to the Board due to the lack of
applications.
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
���� �i-ilk r, C�►a�'r�n��s���, ��s�`qn I°ev��;� ���<�
Design Review Board Minutes-December 8,1998 5