Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-15 DRB MinutesThis meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD). Page 1 of 4 MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 121 NORTH ROUSE AVENUE WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2015 5:30 P.M. ITEM 1. 05:35:19 PM CALL TO ORDER ITEM 2. 05:35:28 PM PUBLIC COMMENT  Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Development Review Committee, not on this agenda. Three minute time limit per speaker.  Individual items will have a public comment period at the end of Committee discussion. ITEM 3. 05:35:45 PM MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014 05:35:55 PM Mark Hufstetler moved “approval of the minutes as presented to the Board.” Seconded by Bill Rea. ITEM 4. 05:36:09 PM PROJECT REVIEW 1. Building D Bozeman Gateway Prel. SP/COA Application Z14099 (Krueger/Murray) 3240 Technology Boulevard West A Site Plan COA Application for the construction of a drive through restaurant with associated parking and related site improvements. 05:36:32 PM Brian Krueger, Department of Community Development, presented Staff Report discussing application, requirements, changes made since last review. 05:52:56 PM Mel Howe expressed concerns with proposed dark exterior, felt it looked funereal. 05:54:27 PM Bill Rea wanted to know if recommendation and site plan and certificate were being considered separately— Brian Krueger advised that they were not being considered separately but only considering certificate appropriateness, site layout, building design, and primarily compliance with PUD standards. 05:55:58 PM Laura Dornberger, Lucati Architects, and Jim Almondmorse, presented for applicant. Agreed to implement awning over back door and adding details to metal door. Concerned with condition three regarding articulation of parapet wall, discussed options. Requested that condition four be stricken, felt additional changes to side variations would be too much. Shared handouts, discussed involvement of Ted Mitchell who must approve the site plan of every building that goes through the Bozeman Gateway, requirement of PUD, described his enthusiasm for the black awnings. Accepted condition six, shared landscaper’s comments about condition seven which is believed to have been met. 06:03:57 PM Lessa Racow wanted to know if any color besides black had been considered as an alternative to red—Laura Dornberger indicated that these were the only two colors that had been considered. Staff indicated that they had considered and recommended black. 06:06:56 PM Mel Howe sought clarification on awning material—Laura Dornberger indicated they would be metal, not fabric. Clarified that Staff did not feel proposed building was similar to buildings presented for reference. 06:08:15 PM Mark Hufstetler wondered at what point an awning would be considered integral to the building—Brian Krueger acknowledged that some features could be changed but that they do not consider the possibility of change, Laura Dornberger confirmed awnings could be physically removed. Mark Hufstetler wanted to know if visible elements would exhibit Arby’s red or proposed black—Laura felt that only signage would incorporate red element. Mark Hufstetler wondered if snow removal could infringe upon the landscape—Brian Krueger described snow removal plan, advised capacity was adequate. Mark Hufstetler wanted to know if Arby’s logo would be seen anywhere but on the building’s walls—Brian Krueger advised that directional signage could be used at the developer’s discretion but no free-standing signs. 06:13:40 PM Walter Banziger confirmed conditions one, two, and five were agreed upon. Walter Banziger wanted to This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD). Page 2 of 4 know if responses to other conditions were acceptable—Brian Krueger indicated they would like to see design revisions that had been proposed to address condition three, that Gateway development manual specifies some requirements but that Development and the Developer have different interpretations and there is some flexibility, that Development has recommended a change to color to differentiate from franchise architecture, that screen between parking area and street could be achieved in a variety of ways but that boulders were generally inadequate. Walter Banziger wanted to know if applicant might consider other color schemes, possibly copper—Laura Dornberger expressed that they may be open to it but that it hasn’t previously been discussed. 06:19:45 PM Bill Rea asked if Staff understood these awnings to be unique—Brian Krueger confirmed. Bill Rea asked for comment on distributed materials—Laura indicated that Arby’s made modifications to the materials per the applicant’s request and that the proposed building was substantially different from these examples. Bill Rea wanted to confirm that awnings and mullions would match—Laura Dornberger indicated that the mullions would remain black. 06:22:26 PM Chris Mehl sought clarification of condition three and offset and modulation—Brian Krueger directed to page nine, advised what appeared as “condition two” should read “condition three”, indicated offset and modulation were generally interchangeable. Brian Krueger clarified role of Staff, indicated they do not formally make design recommendations but determine whether mandated criteria has been met. Brian Krueger clarified that condition three applied to height and condition four applied to offset. Laura Dornberger noted that they had taken care to make offsets deep rather than high. Chris Mehl cited letter from Shelly Angler indicating plantings and landscape are consistent with species and density required elsewhere, cited opinion that proposed screening would enhance appearance—Brian Krueger indicated they were not concerned with species but that they felt some additions were needed to meet the continuous screen standard. 06:31:23 PM Bill Rea recommended a conversation to precede the motion. 06:31:47 PM Lessa Racow, Walter Banziger agreed. Although inaudible, Mel Howe seems to have voiced some objections. 06:32:47 PM Lessa Racow expressed professional opinion in support of City Staff regarding plants and density for screening. Felt that black awnings gave heavy and ominous feeling to building. Expressed that lowering solar panels would help to address condition three, sought clarification for condition four. 06:35:19 PM Mel Howe expressed opinion that building architecture was inherently corporate, felt focus on color was misplaced. 06:36:38 PM Mark Hufstetler agreed with Staff regarding landscaping, observed that planting rows serve to emphasize roadway corridors rather than diffuse asphalt, thought it would be better integrated if landscaping were less linear. Mark Hufstetler expressed that the awnings and color choices were not a personal concern as they could be replaced. Agreed with Mel Howe that building was inherently corporate and needed additional changes. 06:42:13 PM Walter Banziger expressed that Staff’s proposed landscaping alterations were reasonable, that he was not personally concerned with condition four requirements, that a more natural color would be more suitable than black for awnings, that he agrees that proposed architecture retains corporate feeling. 06:45:12 PM Bill Rea expressed particular concern with the franchise issue, that some things discussed may help to address that concern but that proposed awnings are not unique enough to differentiate, would like to avoid setting precedent that building might be approved that is not unique. 06:48:26 PM Lessa Racow expressed that pinnacle may represent the prime Arby’s-specific feature and may need to be considered for alteration. 06:48:58 PM Mark Hufstetler agreed that pinnacle was most visible but believed many elements were consistent with franchise architecture, felt changes that had been made were commendable but inadequate. 06:50:02 PM Walter Banziger wondered if an alteration to the pinnacle would be an adequate change—Mark Hufstetler felt such a proposal would not be approved by Arby’s. 06:50:44 PM Mel Howe sought definition of term, “corporate architecture”—Bill Krueger indicated Staff had the direction in the municipal code and in the design objectives plan, that that was it so far as city documents go, but that generally accepted elements defined in various planning literature, proposed working definition of entire building as a large sign that identifies the corporation automatically. Bill Krueger continued that city was not anti-franchise but encouraged adaptations of local design traditions, that design team in this case is responding to these challenges, expressed opinion that building would reflect local area which is an eclectic set of buildings with some common features. Mel Howe summarized Bill Krueger’s position as welcoming franchise architecture but insisting it look different from all other franchises—Bill Krueger clarified that guidelines do not say buildings must be unique but should use innovative new designs to say something about Bozeman. 06:55:24 PM Lessa Racow wanted to know if nearby Rosauer’s building was unique relative to other Rosauer’s buildings—Bill Krueger agreed that it was, Mark Hufstetler confirmed and lauded success of the Rosauer’s project. 06:56:32 PM Bill Rea expressed opinion that existing building provided as an example is identical with one being proposed, concerned that another Arby’s could later be built in city that was not unique. 06:58:07 PM Walter Banziger felt most of discussion today had been between Staff and Design Review Board, suggested This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD). Page 3 of 4 letting applicant speak to questions that had been posed. Possibility discussed quietly by Board Members. 06:59:25 PM Mark Hufstetler proposed taking a look at the proposed motion to move it forward or determining what should be altered to address the franchise issue. 07:00:04 PM Chris Mehl requested that if applicant be asked for comment that public comment be re-opened and that the applicant be talked to before a motion be made. 07:00:55 PM Bill Rea indicated that he did not need to hear from the applicant regarding their views on franchise architecture, that it would not sway his opinion. Mark Hufstetler suggested Board had already had enough discussion with applicant but would be open to hearing something new. 07:02:49 PM Lessa Racow moved regarding Building D Bozeman Gateway Preliminary SPOA Application Z14009 (sic) “to recommend approval with modifications to the recommended conditions, those being condition number one as recommended by staff: the awning shall be provided over the door in the south elevation; condition number two the door on the south elevation shall be architecturally interesting; to strike conditions three and four; and to alter condition five to state ‘all awnings be a natural color to coordinate with the exterior of the building palette’; and conditions six and seven to remain as recommended by staff: condition six stating ‘all rooftop equipment shall be fully screened by parapet walls or an architectural screen using the materials of the color palette of the building façades’ and number seven that ‘additional shrub planting shall be included along the proposed drive-through circulation areas and front set back planting areas along Harmond Stream Boulevard and Technology Boulevard to fully screen and buffer the drive through the parking and circulation areas from view from the public ways.’” Seconded by Walter Banziger. 07:04:54 PM Walter Banziger suggested that rather than striking sections three and four the motion be amended to say that “they are satisfied to the concurrence of City Staff.” Lessa Rancow agreed, as did Walter Banziger who was required to agree as second. 07:05:43 PM Bill Rea expressed discomfort with change to condition five, suggested different language from “neutral” and “natural”, suggested should mention more features than just the awning. Walter Banziger recommended deferring to Staff and Mark Hufstetler suggested language requesting the color palette be aesthetically satisfactory but not representative of a franchise color palette. 07:08:28 PM Mel Howe sought clarification whether the request was that the applicant alter the proposed color palette— Mark Hufstetler expressed that the Board was only asking to alter the awning color to not reflect franchise architectural styles but that beyond that any color palette okayed by Staff is fine. 07:09:22 PM Lessa Racow moved to amend item number five to say that “all awnings, roofing, and mullions be a color that is aesthetically satisfactory and satisfied by Staff and not representative of franchise colors.” Seconded by Walter Banziger, who clarified for applicant that in not striking items three and four he intended that the developer reach an agreement with Staff to satisfy these conditions. 07:10:41 PM Mark Hufstetler proposed adding a new condition in place of those removed to incentivize tackling the aforementioned design issues—Bill Rea was hesitant to write a condition that altered the form of the building, wanted to know if alterations to pinnacle would suit other Board Members. Mark Hufstetler cited example of another Arby’s that had used a heavier cornice to overshadow the pinnacle—Bill Rea proposed thinking of the pinnacle as an expression of depth of wall thickness incorporated in architectural features. 07:13:40 PM Mel Howe expressed that pinnacle was really a gabled end wall and can not be removed without a replacement—Mark Hufstetler felt the issue was that the pinnacle was artificial and mandated by Arby’s, that it should be transformed to remove the corporate feel. 07:15:25 PM Mel Howe agreed with Bill Rea’s comments that building was nice in spite of being franchise, indicated he was not worried about it being franchise architecture and that would be how he voted. 07:15:59 PM Bill Rea passed around the photo being discussed. 07:16:28 PM Bill Rea sought clarification whether recommendation number four had been stricken—Lessa Racow indicated that it had been amended to be satisfactory of City Staff. 07:17:31 PM Mel Howe called for a vote. Board Member – Lessa Racow: Motion Board Member - Walter Banziger: 2nd Board Member - Bill Rea: Approve Board Member - Melvin Howe: Approve Board Member – Lessa Racow: Approve Board Member - Walter Banziger: Approve Board Member - Mark Hufstetler: Approve 07:18:27 PM Bill Rea discussed email regarding tonight’s agenda, stating that Mike Pentecost, chair of the Board, had left This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD). Page 4 of 4 the Board to pursue his enterprises. Shared that new chair needed to be elected tonight or at next meeting. 07:19:00 PM Mark Hufstetler moved to appoint Bill Rea as the chair of the Board. Seconded by Lessa Racow. Board Member - Mark Hufstetler: Motion Board Member – Lessa Racow: 2nd Board Member - Bill Rea: Abstain Board Member - Melvin Howe: Approve Board Member – Lessa Racow: Approve Board Member - Walter Banziger: Approve Board Member - Mark Hufstetler: Approve 07:19:36 PM Bill Rea described that vice-chair position was empty, needed to be appointed and elected. Bill Rea appointed Walter Banziger, seconded by Mark Hufstetler. Board Member - Bill Rea: Motion Board Member - Mark Hufstetler: 2nd Board Member - Bill Rea: Approve Board Member - Melvin Howe: Approve Board Member – Lessa Racow: Approve Board Member - Walter Banziger: Approve Board Member - Mark Hufstetler: Approve ITEM 5. 07:20:27 PM ADJOURNMENT This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-3203 (TDD).