Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 16 2008_Billion_CVS Informal Application #I-08006 Report compiled on June 9, 2008 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner SUBJECT: The Billion/CVS Informal Application, #I-08006 MEETING DATE: Monday, June 16, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission considers the comments from staff, the Design Review Board, and provides the applicant with comments to assist them in preparing a formal application. BACKGROUND: Intrinsik Architecture on behalf of URS Corporation, the Velmeir Companies, and SKP, LLC has submitted an application for informal review. They are seeking comment and input from the Commission and various advisory boards regarding a redevelopment project. The project is a retail/commercial/service use project at the Northwest corner of West Main Street and North 19th Avenue. The property lies within the W. Main Street and N. 19th Avenue Class II Entryway Corridors. This property is currently occupied by the Billion car dealership and would be wholesale redevelopment of the entire property with the demolition and/or removal of all current buildings on site. The Development Review Committee reviewed this proposal at their April 2 and 9, 2008 meetings. The Design Review Board reviewed this proposal at their April 9 and May 14, 2008 meetings. The purpose of the informal review is to determine the general appropriateness of the site plan and building architecture proposed. The area is currently designated as Community Commercial on Figure 6-2 of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan as are the majority of the surrounding properties. The project property is zoned as “B-2” (Community Business District). The proposal includes four retail/commercial buildings and associated parking. The applicant has submitted building elevations for a proposed CVS pharmacy building on site. The applicant received negative comments from staff and the Design Review Board on their original submittal. Through the process the applicant has responded to comments and revised and resubmitted a site plan and building elevations. The revised site plan has received positive comments from staff and the Design Review Board. The architecture proposed for the CVS pharmacy continues to represent franchise design, which is strongly discouraged in the Entryway Corridors. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Franchise design of the proposed CVS pharmacy building and as suggested by the City Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. 103 Report compiled on June 9, 2008 Commission Memorandum CONTACT: Please feel free to email Brian Krueger at bkrueger@bozeman.net if you have any questions. APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Staff memo to the Design Review Board, dated 5-14-2008 Minutes of the Design Review Board’s 5-14-08 public meeting Staff memo to the Design Review Board, dated 4-2-2008 Minutes of the Design Review Board’s 4-9-08 public meeting Aerial photo Applicant’s submittal original and revised 104 planning · zoning · subdivision review · annexation · historic preservation · housing · grant administration · neighborhood coordination CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Board FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner RE: Billion/CVS Informal (#I-08006) DATE: May 14, 2008 Planning Staff is hoping to obtain informal comments from the Design Review Board on the Billion/CVS Revised Informal proposal. The revised proposal has not been reviewed by the Development Review Committee. Planning Staff is offering the following recommendations and comments on the proposed design: General Comments on the Revision. Staff finds the revised design overall more consistent with the Design Guidelines. The applicant has incorporated numerous recommendations of staff and the Design Review Board and has addressed satisfactorily most of the critical guidelines within the Design Objectives Plan. The plan could become more consistent by creating a better hierarchy of driveways and drive aisles, by providing main entrances to the CVS building and South retail building that were along or adjacent to the street edge, and by further developing plaza and outdoor space at these primary entrances. All buildings will require innovative design solutions for building backsides, service entrances, and utility areas. The drive through areas could also use more work to clearly delineate stacking spaces and to eliminate excessive drive aisle space. Overall the plan is improved and generally supportable by staff if the plan addresses the deficiencies identified in the comments below. 1. Entryway Corridor, Design Objectives Plan: For All Properties: a. See the Design Objectives Plan (DOP) for Entryway Corridors at pages specified. b. Page 12—Provide direct automobile access within or to an abutting property when feasible A vehicular and pedestrian connection to the Town and Country Grocery site has been provided. c. Page 13—Provide convenient pedestrian and bikeway connections among abutting properties. There is a midblock crossing across N. 20th Avenue into Kirk Park. A good direct connection to that crosswalk via a plaza space has been provided. Good pedestrian connections into the Town and Country Site are provided. d. Page 16—Objectives for Site Design. Provide buildings that clearly establish the desired character for development at major intersections. Buildings at key intersections should strongly establish a pedestrian scale and address the road edge. Such designs should be encouraged on corner parcels throughout the entryway corridors. The buildings are appropriately sited at the setback lines for the corridor. 105 Page 2 Although a smaller building has been placed at the intersection, architectural elements including a second floor and/or a tower element would provide a stronger presence. e. Page 23—Policy for Building Placement. Buildings should be sited to respect development patterns that are identified in the design objectives for the area, such as the orientation of the structures to the street, alignment of building fronts and setbacks, relationship to neighboring properties, as well as the location of buildings at major intersections. The proposed buildings are sited such that they are consistent with the setback patterns of the more recent buildings constructed in the area. f. Page 23—Where two or more buildings will be located in a major site development, arrange them in a cluster to define outdoor spaces. This proposal includes four buildings. The buildings are not clustered to define outdoor spaces. The buildings are anchored to the streetscape and not islanded by drive aisles and parking. A plaza area along the frontage of the North Office/Bank/Retail building does provide outdoor public space as well as plaza space allocated for the north side of the West Retail building. In lieu of clustered outdoor space staff recommends that the main entrance to the CVS building be located at the southeast corner of the building along the streetscape and that an outdoor plaza space be developed in this area. g. Page 23—Where a major intersection occurs, provide a building anchor at the corner. . The buildings are appropriately sited at the setback lines for the corridor. Although a smaller building has been placed at the intersection, architectural elements including a second floor and/or a tower element would provide a stronger presence. h. Page 23—Organize the public edges of a site to provide visual interest to pedestrians. With proper building design and architectural enhancement the loading area and trash enclosures could provide visual interest along N. 19th Avenue. Staff recommends that the main entrance to the CVS building be located at the southeast corner of the building along the streetscape and an outdoor plaza space be developed in this area. The building design guidelines will apply to the CVS building and the applicant should pursue a unique design for this building that provides as much clear glass as possible along the N. 19th Frontage. i. Page 23—Locate a building entry near the sidewalk edge with an entry plaza and landscape, when feasible. It seems feasible to bring the CVS building main entrance closer to the southeast corner of the building to provide a presence along the street. This area could also be enhanced with a more developed plaza and landscaping. The South Retail building should have an entrance on the corner. This building will need careful design to prevent a backside presence to the street. No spandrel glass will be considered on the south or east elevations of this building. j. Page 23—Building shall be positioned to fit within the general setback patterns specified for the corridor. Generally acceptable. k. Page 24—Develop an outdoor public space as a focal point for the site. There is not a single focused outdoor public space on site, but there is an opportunity to provide high quality plazas and landscaping at each building along the streetscape. The CVS building and South Retail building could benefit from more developed outdoor space along the streetscape. l. Page 24—Connect an outdoor public space with major building activities. See above. m. Page 28—Within a development, convey the hierarchy of internal street and driveways in the streetscape design. The proposal does not convey a hierarchy of internal driveways. The primary drive aisles and circulation routes should have a character and level of landscaping that conveys them as “primary streets.” Drive aisles which access smaller parking areas and the drive through uses should be clearly subordinate to the primary routes. There is an awkward intersection where the entrance 106 Page 3 from 20th meets the main north/south drive aisle. The minimal offset should be eliminated at this intersection. The narrow strip of plantings along the north/south drive aisle west of the CVS building should be a minimum width of eight feet. n. Page 28—Minimize curb cuts onto a public street along a property edge. Neutral. Elimination of the curb cut onto West Main would allow a larger building at the corner of Main and 19th and may enable a more efficient parking layout in this area. o. Page 31—Minimize the negative visual impacts of cars parked on site. The current design utilizes extensive landscape beds to screen parking south of the CVS building. Staff recommends that the applicant investigate an innovative screening solution that incorporates landscaping and solid architectural screening that mimics the overall building design and materials for the development. Screening shall be provided between the parking areas and public ways (concrete, steel, masonry and/or stone or combinations thereof in a low decorative wall, etc.). p. Page 31—Use shared drives to access parking areas when feasible. Staff supports the utilization of a shared access for the westernmost access from N. 20th Avenue. Staff supports the vehicular connection to the Town and Country site. q. Page 35—Landscape buffers should be provided. Screening shall be provided between the parking areas and public ways (landscaped berm, low decorative wall, evergreen hedge, etc.). The amount of landscape screening for the parking areas currently depicted between the North Office/Bank/Retail building and the access to N. 19th is insufficient. See comments above regarding alternative screening and landscaping. 2. Entryway Corridor, Design Objectives Plan: West Main: a. Due to the nature and location of the development, and the character of the surrounding area staff will provide primary review emphasis on the West Main Street guidelines, with emphasis on N. 7th to N. 19th Avenue street character. b. See pages 63-68 of the DOP. c. The vision for development of the W. Main Corridor is that it have a strip of green (25’setback), landscaped open space along the roadway and then, an edge of buildings generally defining the inside edge of the greensward. d. Building shall present facades to the public walk that are visually interesting. They may include display cases, storefronts, public art and other decorative features that provide visual interest and establish a sense of human scale. e. The goal is to encourage more buildings to be constructed to the minimum setback. Parking should be primarily located to the interior of the property. f. Internal driveway systems should permit circulation between properties without returning to the highway. Encl: None. Sent To: SKP, LLC, 102 Village Downtown Boulevard, Bozeman, MT 59715 URS Corporation, Attn. Michael Brown, 3950 Sparks Drive SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 Intrinsik Architecture, Attn. Susan Kozub, 111 North Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 The Velmeir Companies, Attn: Matt Hoener, 5757 W. Maple Road, Suite 800, West Bloomfield, MT 48322 Mailed May 15, 2008 following the DRB meeting. Delivered by hand to attendees. 107 1 Design Review Board Minutes – May 14, 2008 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:35 p.m. in the upstairs conference room of the Alfred Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Mel Howe Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Michael Pentecost Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner Christopher Livingston Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Bill Rea Visitors Present Susan Kozub Dick Prugh Chris Budeski Michael Shamblin ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2008. MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to approve the minutes of April 23, 2008 as presented. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW 1. JC Billion/CVS (19th/Main) REDESIGN Redevelopment INF #I-08006 (Krueger) 1919 West Main Street * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a pharmacy, bank, and retail structures with related site improvements. Susan Kozub joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Memo noting there had been a redesign of the site plan for the Informal Application. He noted Staff found the design to be more consistent with the Design Objectives Plan and a better design that was more in keeping with comments from Staff and initial DRB review. He stated the buildings had been pulled back to the setback line and noted those locations. He stated Staff had taken a neutral position on the proposed location of the driveway on West Main Street; adding that a larger building might require better parking orientation. Mr. Banziger joined the DRB. Ms. Kozub noted the applicant had gone through several site plan options and had decided on the current proposal as it best addressed the criteria in the DOP. She stated there would be a second 108 2 Design Review Board Minutes – May 14, 2008 north south sidewalk instituted on the site (two public street sidewalks and one internal sidewalk) that would provide an alternative pedestrian path. She stated a pedestrian pathway had been added to connect to Town & Country to the north to provide for site connectivity and better vehicular circulation. She stated it was difficult to combine drive thru isles and parking maneuverability due to the difference in uses, but more of those features could be combined on the formal submittal. She noted the CVS footprint was totally unique and was unlike any other CVS Pharmacy building. She asked the DRB to discuss how more of an urban feel could be achieved in the design of the buildings; adding the applicant would be amenable to more architectural features being instituted. She stated the DRB could add a condition that required the proposal be reviewed prior to Final Site Plan approval. She stated the design of the corner building would be what drew people to the site and it would be difficult to create a sense of enclosure due to the existing boulevard and setback requirements in that location. Mr. Howe stated he was assuming the parking calculations met the requirements. Planner Krueger responded he thought there was adequate parking for the site as retail uses but parking would need to be revisited if office uses were included. Mr. Rea asked if the parking could be relocated into a setback. Planner Krueger responded a Variance could be requested. Mr. Rea stated he thought everyone would be in favor of a Variance request to encroach 5 feet or more and leave more room for building area (expansion of the building to that line) and added that he did not care about parking in this instance as it was more important that the corner be well developed. He asked if the crosswalk to Kirk Park existed. Ms. Kozub responded it did exist. Mr. Rea stated the tower feature seemed appropriate for that part of town as many of those features were instituted on other structures. He stated he would be uncomfortable approving any design without first reviewing the design of the proposed signage. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if Intrinsik would be designing the structures. Ms. Kozub responded Intrinsik did not have a signed agreement and CVS had their own architect who would likely design the structures. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the DRB would be reviewing the proposal during formal Site Plan review. Planner Krueger responded they might review the site as a whole, but if boundary realignment occurred the buildings might be located on smaller lots that might not meet the threshold for DRB review. Mr. Banziger asked if the back of the CVS building would be architecturally detailed. Ms. Kozub responded the loading area would be in one location; the south elevation would be the front elevation and would be architecturally detailed. Mr. Banziger stated he did not think some of Staff and DRB comments had been thoroughly addressed and suggested sustainability efforts were a concern. He stated he thought it would be nice to have connectivity to the park via a seating area. Ms. Kozub responded there was a seating area included in that location but it had not been labeled. Mr. Banziger suggested alternative transit connectivity, bus stops, and bike paths could be instituted on the site. He stated the urban feel the DRB hoped to see for 19th Avenue might be achieved with screening and strong street presences along North 19th Avenue and North 22nd Avenue. Mr. Howe stated the site seemed to have two vehicle entrances and the one on 19th Avenue 109 3 Design Review Board Minutes – May 14, 2008 would be the major access to the site; adding he did not like the idea of traffic coming onto the site past a garbage/loading area and the back of a building; he suggested the building should invite people to the site. Mr. Rea stated he applauded the applicant for their efforts to meet Staff and DRB suggestions. He stated he thought the applicant should strive for sustainability. Vice Chairperson Pentecost applauded the applicant for their effort to meet Staff and DRB recommendations. He stated parking was driving the building size, design, and accesses; adding it was a design challenge and the applicant was heading in the right direction. He suggested the institution of landscaping would help to that end. Chairperson Livingston stated he thought it would be important to park in some of the drive isles as it would make the vehicular circulation better and reduce the amount of impervious surfaces. He suggested that pedestrian connectivity to Town & Country west of the bank drive thru should be included. He suggested measures, such as scored crosswalks, be instituted to promote traffic calming. He suggested the inclusion of sustainability features wherever possible. 2. James Lindley Home SP/COA/DEV INFORMAL #Z-08016 (Kramer) 406 East Story Street * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations Informal to allow the restoration of the existing residence and the construction of two, two-car garages with apartments above, a common laundry/storage area, and related site improvements. Assistant Planner Courtney Kramer presented the Staff Memo noting the project did not necessarily need to be reviewed by the DRB but she was requesting comments as the development would impact Bogert Park. She noted the original building was CMU block. Mr. Rea asked who designed the proposal. Planner Kramer responded it was an architect from Dowling Sandholm Architects. Mr. Rea asked if the mini storage was on the same lot. Planner Kramer responded it was not. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if there was a jurisdictional waterway on the site. Planner Kramer responded there was (Bozeman Creek) and the applicant was requesting Deviations from the City Commission. Vice Chairperson Pentecost noted that a floodplain permit would be required to build in the jurisdictional waterway. Mr. Banziger asked Planner Kramer to walk the DRB through the repair of the finish on the existing structure. Planner Kramer explained the corn blasting process with subsequent treatment and clarified that it was for preservation more than restoration. Chairperson Livingston asked what the rear setback was supposed to have been. Planner Kramer responded it was a 20 foot setback and the applicant was requesting encroachment through the Deviation process. Mr. Howe stated he thought the proposal was an improvement to what existed in that location 110 4 Design Review Board Minutes – May 14, 2008 and he was supportive. Mr. Rea stated he was uncomfortable with the east property line and suggested the City and the owner could work together to provide a pedestrian connection to Bogert Park; he added that he thought the proposal looked like a good solution. Planner Kramer added that signage could direct people to that pedestrian connection. Mr. Banziger stated the proportion of the proposed buildings was good for the site and he saw nothing objectionable being proposed. He stated he agreed with Mr. Rea regarding a connection to the park Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he did not see any reason a pedestrian connection should be included on privately owned land or an easement procured from the owner for that purpose and suggested a connection could be located within the stream corridor. He stated he liked the proposed modulated forms, layering, integration of colors, and materials palette. He stated he was supportive of the proposal but was not supportive of the applicant giving up five feet for a public trail connection. Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments. He stated he found the 3-D view in the submittal to be minimizing the entrances into the structures and more should be seen than garage doors at 90 degree angles to one another; adding it was not particularly desirable and there could be problems with garage entrances. He noted the public would see a series of garage doors from the road while the people living there would have a nice view of the park. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 4. First Security Bank SP/COA #Z-08068 (Bristor) 208 East Main Street * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the partial demolition of the bank and rear parking area for a new bank and parking lot design with related site improvements. Dick Prugh, Chris Budeski, and Michael Shamblin joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Courtney Kramer presented the Staff Report on behalf of Allyson Bristor noting Staff’s recommended conditions of approval. She noted the Secretary of Interior Standards did not apply as the building was not over 50 years old. She stated the window openings proposed for the second floor were too large and should maintain a rectangular shape and a more pronounced cap might be justified. She stated the upper floor should be perceived as being more opaque than the main level floor. Mr. Prugh stated GVLT had spoken with the bank people regarding cleaning up an area by Bozeman Creek that had been walled in and encouraged graffiti. He stated the bank had addressed the situation by instituting a seating area and suggested the DRB send a letter to the City to see if they would rework the parking to create more green space on the other side of the wall and provide a public easement. He stated a portion of the building footprint had been increased and the applicant was looking into putting solar cells on the south elevation of the bank and the drive through. He stated the existing mushrooms were free to whoever wanted them to 111 5 Design Review Board Minutes – May 14, 2008 use as picnic bench covers or some such. He stated the bank was not interested in redoing its building in the current form whatsoever. He stated the sign on Main Street would be maintained as it has historic sign status within the City and the covers put around the base of the sign and planter base were going to be removed to bring the sign back to the original 1960’s design. He stated the window scale on the west and north facades included arched windows and he did not agree that the proposed arched windows were inappropriate for the bank; he noted bank buildings downtown had a similar window style. He stated the idea of putting smaller windows on the upper floor would not be feasible as the bank wanted to include offices on the upper floor. He stated he intended to provide old and new photographs with building drawings outlining the history of work done to the structure. Planner Kramer added that the BHPAB was supportive of the proposal. Mr. Rea asked if both the 3D rendering and site plan depicted signage. Mr. Prugh noted the existing sign was depicted, but there would be a sign across from Gallatin Laundry. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the applicant to walk through the extent of the demolition that was being proposed. Mr. Prugh responded there would be a new electric transformer, generator, and mechanical equipment installed in a roof penthouse. He stated the second floor would be demolished and the remodel of the first floor would be one façade at a time so that the new steel framework could be affixed in the original locations. He added everything would need to be reinsulated except for the roof. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the applicant had any intention of seeking LEED certification. Mr. Prugh responded they would use the LEED checklist as a guideline and would institute some conservation features on the site but would not seek LEED certification. Chairperson Livingston asked if the upper level would have operable windows. Mr. Prugh responded it would not have operable windows. Chairperson Livingston asked the specific glazing for the upper level windows. Mr. Prugh responded there would be tinted windows and opaque panels. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the materials used for the original building. Mr. Prugh responded there were some CMU walls, the west side was almost all glass, the walls below the windows were insulation in a steel stud, and there was a pre-cast concrete panel skin. Mr. Howe stated he thought it would be a handsome looking building and it would be nice to see it downtown. Mr. Rea stated it saddened him to see exceptional commercial mid-century architecture being removed and he thought there was the potential for rehabilitation. He stated he thought a bank coming into a community became the icon of grand buildings within the community. He stated he thought the building made a strong statement and the proposed building did not make that same statement. He stated it seemed to be a trend for banks in Bozeman to look cheap and he found nothing about the building to be exceptional, but rather normative. He stated he agreed with Staff recommendations. He stated he did not like the elevations and liked the color rendering less; adding he had hoped for something better and suggesting the applicant push further. He stated he would not approve the project until he had reviewed the signage. 112 6 Design Review Board Minutes – May 14, 2008 Mr. Banziger stated he concurred, not as strongly, with Mr. Rea regarding the materials and design of the building as it would have a more commercial retail feel. He stated it was sad to see a monument building removed and he agreed with Staff recommendations. He congratulated the applicant on their sustainability efforts with special regard to the feature proposed along the creek. He stated he was glad to hear they were following the LEED criteria even though they were not seeking certification. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated the proposal seemed to be a great big brick mass piled on the corner and nothing spoke to the age of the building. He stated the proposed building seemed like a Fort Knox type of building and suggested the applicant should provide character and detail. He stated a bank should feel grand and make a strong statement. He stated the energy consumption in the building could be less over time if sustainability features were instituted. He stated he saw similarities between the proposed structure and the Snowload Building and suggested revisiting what existed. He stated he was not sure the proposal was the right thing to do in that location. Chairperson Livingston stated he thought what the applicant intended for the creek area was great, but was shocked that the City was not willing to improve their portion of the creek. He stated the parking lot was nondescript now and it was good to see that it had been addressed. He stated pads or pedestrian circulation through the parking and drive thru should be addressed on the site to provide for public safety and organization. He stated he did not know that the Main Street sign was historic. He stated he agreed with previous DRB comments regarding the design of the building and suggested more brickwork be incorporated in the design. He suggested pilaster details or something more pronounced around the corners would be appropriate. He noted differentiated glazing could be included to make it distinctively different. He stated he would like to see lighting along the façade. Mr. Banziger clarified he did not expect to see granite and marble on the building, but was using those examples as a metaphor. MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a strong recommendation to the City Commission for the City of Bozeman to make improvements to the east side of Bozeman Creek adjacent to the First Security Bank property at a level beyond what the owners of the west side have agreed to do, to be consistent with the support and beautification of Bozeman. The motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for First Security Bank SP/COA #Z-08068 with Staff conditions. The motion failed. Mr. Prugh stated there had been several designs presented to the bank and they had chosen the proposed design. He stated he had drawn from structures with different designs and much of the current design had been driven by necessity and use restrictions. Mr. Rea responded the DRB was able to help the applicants go back to the client and let them know that the proposal would not be approved as presented. He stated he did not see something that would belong downtown and part of it was due to the frame they were working with; adding he would like to see more interesting windows on street level and he did not see much effort being made to preserve the historical character of Main Street. 113 7 Design Review Board Minutes – May 14, 2008 Mr. Banziger suggested a stronger appearance on a corner in historic downtown Bozeman. Mr. Prugh concurred that a combination of things made the proposal unremarkable. Mr. Shamblin suggested the downtown review guidelines created similarities between each building that would be continued throughout all the designs; adding he thought it was a mixed message when something needed to be historic, but was new construction. He noted the interpretation could go many ways. Mr. Rea responded his frustration was not uncommon with projects on Main Street; adding there were numerous examples of detailing and architecture that could be instituted. Mr. Budeski added that the First Security Building proposed was a reflection of the banks personality. Mr. Banziger suggested using modern elements of glass and steel without detracting from the historic elements of the façades along Main Street. Mr. Rea stated he would love to see a stone entryway instituted on the site and he would applaud the bank for a display window and a connection to the community. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he would talk to the applicant about the people working in the heat of the west façade due to low sun angles. Mr. Rea stated the DRB’s charge was to make the proposal better and asked if opening and continuing the proposal would help the applicant. Mr. Prugh responded it would and he would discuss with the owners the issues the DRB had brought to his attention. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Banziger seconded to open and continue First Security Bank SP/COA #Z-08068 until the next meeting of the DRB. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 5. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} There was no public available for comment at this time. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board 114 planning · zoning · subdivision review · annexation · historic preservation · housing · grant administration · neighborhood coordination CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Board FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner RE: Billion/CVS Informal (#I-08006) DATE: April 2, 2008 for the April 9, 2008 Meeting Planning Staff is hoping to obtain informal comments from the Design Review Board on the Billion/CVS Informal proposal. The proposal includes property that is located at the northwest corner of North 19th Avenue and West Main Street, which is zoned as “B-2” (Community Business District). The proposal is to demolish all existing buildings on site and construct a new CVS Pharmacy, a two- story bank building, and two retail buildings including three drive through uses, parking, and related site improvements. The project is being reviewed by the Development Review Committee on April 2 and 9, 2008 to receive informal comments. Planning Staff is offering the following recommendations and comments on the proposed design: 1. Entryway Corridor, Design Objectives Plan: For All Properties: a. See the Design Objectives Plan (DOP) for Entryway Corridors at pages specified. b. Page 12—Provide direct automobile access within or to an abutting property when feasible A vehicular and pedestrian connection to the Town and Country Grocery site could provide convenient access with the CVS site and reduce traffic movements on abutting public streets. The uses proposed on the CVS site and Town and Country Grocery site are complementary and staff could envision customers circulating on site by walking rather than automobile once they are parked on site. c. Page 13—Provide convenient pedestrian and bikeway connections among abutting properties. There is a midblock crossing across N. 20th Avenue into Kirk Park. No direct connection to that crosswalk is provided. Consider providing a major pedestrian connection into the Town and Country Site. d. Page 16—Objectives for Site Design. Provide buildings that clearly establish the desired character for development at major intersections. Buildings at key intersections should strongly establish a pedestrian scale and address the road edge. Such designs should be encouraged on corner parcels throughout the entryway corridors. Placing the CVS building, bank building, and retail buildings 1 and 2 away from the street and placing parking and circulation aisles between the buildings and the street does not establish a pedestrian scale. The proposed development pattern increases the perceived width of N. 19th Avenue and West Main Street placing the pedestrian in a subordinate role. The proposed buildings are setback and do not offer any enclosure to the street. Placing parking and drive aisles between the building and the street does not 115 Page 2 bring definition to address the road edge, but increases the impact of the automobile on pedestrians and the streetscape at this key and major intersection within the City. e. Page 21—Parking areas should be designed to minimize stormwater runoff. The proposal has a large amount of drive aisle and circulation space to access the parking areas. The drive aisle on the west side of CVS building and the circulation aisle around the bank only incorporates a minimal amount of parking. Drive aisles that also directly incorporate parking minimize the need for impervious surfaces. f. Page 22—Where it is to be used, design a detention pond as a site amenity. The landscape plan submitted does not specify areas for stormwater retention and detention on site. Retention/detention facilities should be incorporated into the site design. g. Page 23—Policy for Building Placement. Buildings should be sited to respect development patterns that are identified in the design objectives for the area, such as the orientation of the structures to the street, alignment of building fronts and setbacks, relationship to neighboring properties, as well as the location of buildings at major intersections. The proposed buildings are sited such that they do not match the setback patterns of the more recent buildings constructed in the area. The Town and Country Grocery building to the north and the Pierce Flooring building constructed to the west are close to the street and constructed at the setback lines for the corridor. The CVS and proposed bank building are aligned appropriately to the street, but should be moved forward to the streetscape to maintain the setback pattern for the corridor. Retail building 1 and 2 does not address the street and does not respect the setback pattern established in the area. There is an opportunity at this site to strongly anchor the corner at the major intersection of N. 19th Avenue and West Main street and to establish a street wall along N. 19th Avenue to the Town and Country site and along West Main. h. Page 23—Where two or more buildings will be located in a major site development, arrange them in a cluster to define outdoor spaces. This proposal includes four buildings. The buildings are not clustered to define outdoor spaces. The buildings are isolated and surrounded by parking spaces and drive aisles, and stacking spaces for the drive through uses. The only outdoor space apparent on site is the outdoor plaza at the corner of N. 19th and Main. This space is not defined by a building edge or by the edge of a clustered building. The plaza is isolated, includes parking on two sides and is bisected by a drive aisle. i. Page 23—Where a major intersection occurs, provide a building anchor at the corner. The corner should be defined with a strong building presence. Although the proposal does enhance the corner with a pedestrian entrance plaza including benches and planters it may not be pedestrian friendly as the space does not have a sense of enclosure. The plaza is surrounded by parking and is fairly isolated near the intersection at the corner. If the building were constructed at the setback lines at the intersection while retaining a plaza space the corner the building would anchor the intersection and provide some enclosure to the street and provide human scale for the pedestrian. j. Page 23—Organize the public edges of a site to provide visual interest to pedestrians. Parking areas do not provide visual interest to pedestrians. k. Page 23—Locate a building entry near the sidewalk edge with an entry plaza and landscape, when feasible. It seems feasible to bring the CVS building to the setback lines at the intersection of N. 19th Avenue and West Main street and to provide an entry plaza with landscape features. The proposed bank building should be located at the setback line with a pedestrian connection to the main entrance. Retail building 1 and 2 should b rotated parallel to N. 19th Avenue to address the street edge, maintain the setback pattern, and to bring the entrances as close as possible to the sidewalk along N. 19th Avenue. 116 Page 3 l. Page 23—Building shall be positioned to fit within the general setback patterns specified for the corridor. The buildings are not positioned in the setback pattern specified for the corridor. See page 66 of the DOP for the West Main Corridor :”Provide an infill building adjacent to the sidewalk in new and established developments. This will provide visual interest to the pedestrian, as well as buffer parking areas.” m. Page 24—Develop an outdoor public space as a focal point for the site. The proposed entrance plaza for the CVS building is not a focal point for the site, but a focal feature for CVS. See also Page 23—Where two or more buildings will be located in a major site development, arrange them in a cluster to define outdoor spaces. There appears to be opportunity on site to cluster buildings to provide a main outdoor focal point. n. Page 24—Connect an outdoor public space with major building activities. Use a public open space to connect the entrances of two buildings on a site. o. Page 28—Within a development, convey the hierarchy of internal street and driveways in the streetscape design. The proposal does not convey a hierarchy of internal driveways. The primary drive aisles and circulation routes should have a character and level of landscaping that conveys them as “primary streets.” Drive aisles which access smaller parking areas and the drive through uses should be clearly subordinate to the primary routes. p. Page 28—Minimize curb cuts onto a public street along a property edge. Although the proposal does eliminate a curb cut along N. 19th Avenue, analysis of the aerial view of the general vicinity illustrates that there are two curb cuts along the north side of West Main between N. 19th Avenue and N. 20th Avenue. Staff recommends that the curb cut at the south of the property be eliminated. If the CVS building was moved to anchor the corner at the setback lines a more efficient parking layout may be possible with the elimination of the long drive aisle to the west of the CVS building that currently does not support parking. q. Page 30—In order to reduce the land area for parking surface, use alternative methods of meeting parking demand. A shared parking and access configuration that incorporates the Town and Country site is strongly recommend. The uses on both sites are highly complementary and could provide significant opportunities for customers to come to this area, park once and make most of their shopping trips between uses on foot without using the adjacent public street system for circulation. r. Page 31—Minimize the negative visual impacts of cars parked on site. The current design maximizes the negative visual impacts of cars parked on site by locating the parking areas between the building and public ways and by providing areas of stacking spaces for the drive through uses that are clearly visible from the primary public streets. The buildings should be moved up to the setback lines at the intersection and the parking should be provided to the rear and sides of the building. Screening shall be provided between the parking areas and public ways (landscaped berm, low decorative wall, evergreen hedge, etc.). s. Page 31—Use shared drives to access parking areas when feasible. Staff supports the utilization of a shared access for the westernmost access from N. 20th Avenue. There also may be opportunities to work with Pierce flooring to integrate their access into the project’s circulation. Staff also strongly recommends connecting to the Town and Country site to share access and parking areas. t. Page 35—Landscape buffers should be provided. Screening shall be provided between the parking areas and public ways (landscaped berm, low decorative wall, evergreen hedge, etc.). The amount of landscape screening for the parking areas currently depicted between the CVS building and the public street is insufficient. u. Page 39—Building design. Innovative new designs that draw upon regional design traditions are preferred. Standardized franchise style architecture should be 117 Page 4 strongly discouraged. The design submitted is a franchise design. A survey of photographs from recent CVS franchise construction illustrates that this design contains strong franchise elements. See attachment. v. Page 41—Develop the street level of a building to provide visual interest to pedestrians. The sides of specialty stores should incorporate windows and display cases over at least a third of the façade area. It is unclear if the windows proposed on the street level are functional clear glass windows that will allow a view into the building. Street level clear glass windows are required. The City may consider a combination of transparent clear glass windows that look into a building and a minimum 2’ in depth display case/windows. 1/3 of the façade area shall incorporate these features. w. Page 42—Divide a building into modules that express dimensions of structures seen traditionally. In general this building provides adequate articulation of mass. Staff recommends that the application consider a true 2 story building with mixed uses at this corner. x. Page 45—Using sloping roof forms to reduce the perceived scale of a building is encouraged. Although this is general guidance the growth policy anticipates that this will be an urban corridor and as stated above, in general a more formal architecture and materials palette is anticipated. Standard brick masonry units are preferred over the large scale rusticated CMU. A flat roof/parapet wall roof design would be appropriate in this location with additional cornice street level articulation. y. Page 46—Use traditional building materials for primary wall surfaces. Staff recommends that the applicant consider more appropriate urban materials, such as standard brick masonry (staff does encourage the exploration of other brick colors other than red hues), steel, and, cut stone materials. Staff does applaud the applicant for not proposing EIFS for any of the wall surfaces. z. Page 51—Sign Design Guidelines. A comprehensive sign plan is required for this site. The building mounted signage proposed must be consistent with the square footage allowed in the BMC. 2. Entryway Corridor, Design Objectives Plan: West Main: a. Due to the nature and location of the development, and the character of the surrounding area staff will provide primary review emphasis on the West Main Street guidelines, with emphasis on N. 7th to N. 19th Avenue street character. b. See pages 63-68 of the DOP. c. The vision for development of the W. Main Corridor is that it have a strip of green (25’setback), landscaped open space along the roadway and then, an edge of buildings generally defining the inside edge of the greensward. d. Building shall present facades to the public walk that are visually interesting. They may include display cases, storefronts, public art and other decorative features that provide visual interest and establish a sense of human scale. e. The goal is to encourage more buildings to be constructed to the minimum setback. Parking should be primarily located to the interior of the property. f. Internal driveway systems should permit circulation between properties without returning to the highway. g. Page 68—See illustration. Attached. Encl: Applicant’s submittal materials May 2007 color vicinity aerial map CVS pharmacy examples Page 68 Design Objectives Plan, West Main Street Guidelines 118 Page 5 Sent To: SKP, LLC, 102 Village Downtown Boulevard, Bozeman, MT 59715 URS Corporation, Attn. Michael Brown, 3950 Sparks Drive SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 Intrinsik Architecture, Attn. Susan Kozub, 111 North Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 The Velmeir Companies, Attn: Matt Hoener, 5757 W. Maple Road, Suite 800, West Bloomfield, MT 48322 119 120 Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2008 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2008 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Christopher Livingston Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Elissa Zavora Walter Banziger Bill Rea Visitors Present Sue Pederson Susan Kozub Rob Pertzborn Matt Hoener ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2008. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Chairperson Livingston seconded, to approve the minutes of March 12, 2008 as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW 1. JC Billion/CVS Pharmacy(19th/Main)Redevelopment INF #I-08006 (Krueger) 1919 West Main Street * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a pharmacy, bank, and retail structures with related site improvements. Susan Kozub, Rob Pertzborn, and Matt Hoener joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff memo noting the review was for a proposal to re-utilize the current JC Billion site which includes the removal of the existing structure and the construction of four new structures. He stated he had reviewed the proposal against the Design Objectives Plan guidelines and had provided comments for the DRB. He stated Staff felt the site was extremely important to the City of Bozeman and the importance of the location had been carefully weighed; i.e. it is located at the intersection of two arterial streets, it is located within two Entryway Corridors, etc. He explained the proposed orientations of the structures and that there were three drive-thrus proposed for the site. He stated the way the drive isles had been proposed would force features away from the street. He stated the D.O.P. asked that the setback patterns be respected and the buildings be pulled back towards the street; adding Staff was looking for more of a circular pattern to the site. He stated there was not an internal hierarchy that could be identified to direct people through the site; he noted there was some conflicting circulation proposed. He suggested the proposed CVS building could be located at the existing setback line 121 Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2008 2 and could provide more economy to the proposed drive isle situation. He stated Staff was generally looking for a building to anchor the corner with the parking located in one area on the site. He noted that a sense of enclosure at the intersection might slow traffic down; he added the current speed limit was 25 mph and was not for fast travel. He stated the existing parking layout on the site could accommodate parking for the redevelopment. He noted the D.O.P. called for a more urban streetscape for the site than proposed. He stated Staff hoped to maintain pedestrian connections and had encouraged the applicant to take a more holistic approach to the site development. He stated the proposed building mimicked the franchise architecture of the CVS Pharmacy even though some of the materials were different and added that Staff recommended the applicant propose less franchise architecture and institute brick in the design. Mr. Pertzborn noted the site was tricky due to the 25 foot setbacks, a thirty foot easement, and large right-of-ways in that location. He noted the CVS program was keyed for convenience and the site was difficult with that regard due to access limitations and public access easements along North 19th Avenue. He stated he could not think of a way to put pedestrians at the forefront due to the amount of traffic at that intersection. He stated there was a grade change at the corner that caused somewhat of a feeling of enclosure and noted the reason they were there was the CVS building and the applicant did not know for sure what other tenants there would be. He presented the DRB with a rendering of pedestrian pathways through the site; adding they eventually intended to hook up to the Town & Country site. He stated the vitality and street level interest would be a direct result of the development of the site. He stated the D.O.P cited regional design traditions and he would encourage CVS not to include gables. He stated the design was unique to the franchise both inside and out; adding the D.O.P. never stated franchise features could not be used. Ms. Kozub added Town & Country had too little parking and connectivity would assist in that matter; noting that North 20th Avenue would also provide vehicular connections as a local street. She presented the DRB with a blown up view of the intersection of West Main Street and North 19th Avenue. Mr. Hoener stated the proposed building was unique and had not been built anywhere else. He stated they would use a CMU product that was fired like a brick and would appear to be a jumbo sized brick. He noted there would be the appearance of a real window with blinds and they would not include spandrel or tinted glass. He stated the parking had been reduced to provide for the site, though CVS would have preferred more parking. He stated the proposed plaza area would open up the visual aesthetics on the corner and everything on the park side would be connected. He noted he saw no issue with a connection to the parking lot at Town & Country and they were currently in preliminary discussions. Ms. Zavora asked if the applicant intended to keep the existing trees. Mr. Hoener responded the applicant intended to keep the existing trees in their existing locations wherever possible. Mr. Rea asked the grade change from the Main Street sidewalk to the existing building. Mr. Pertzborn presented photos from the application that showed the grade. Mr. Hoener added he thought it was a five or six foot grade. Ms. Kozub stated the grade was more significant from North 19th Avenue. Mr. Rea asked if the structure could be proposed more toward the street. Mr. Hoener responded building up the site would be too expensive, and ultimately wouldn’t work as five or six feet of your building would be buried in the ground. Mr. Rea asked if there would be issues regarding the historic importance of the building. Planner Krueger responded it could become an issue as it was a popular building in Bozeman. Mr. Rea asked the possibility of 122 Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2008 3 a large, stand-alone sign being located on the corner. Planner Krueger responded it would be allowed with the institution of a comprehensive signage plan. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if someone could go through the easement information for the site. Mr. Pertzborn directed the DRB to the locations of the easements. Vice Chairperson Pentecost noted how close the building could be moved toward 19th Avenue given the site constraints. He asked Mr. Pertzborn to explain the impediment to putting the building against the setback and the parking along the rear. Mr. Pertzborn responded that CVS required parking along the front of the building or they would not move to the site. Mr. Hoener added the front door was usually on the corner to provide a separation between the pharmacy and the other part of the store and provide circulation for the drive-thru; adding that it would not be practical for business operations without parking located in the front. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked what the established setback patterns were for the location. Planner Krueger responded the Town & Country and the Pierce Flooring buildings established the setback patterns for the site. Chairperson Livingston asked Planner Krueger the overall scheme or intended character for the intersection of Main Street and North 19th Avenue. Planner Krueger responded the D.O.P. was the document used for the intended character of sites within the Entryway Corridor; adding that double sided buildings would be appropriate for the site. He stated if the D.O.P. were implemented for the proposal, it would not be supportable in its current form. Chairperson Livingston asked if the easement across the street at Ressler was delineated on the aerial photo. Planner Kozub presented the DRB with easement information noting that the easement ranged from 110 feet to 161 feet. Planner Krueger noted there was a turn pocket constructed on 19th Avenue that was not currently in use. Chairperson Livingston stated the aerial showed cars parked in the unused lot. Mr. Hoener responded the lot was being leased by JC Billion to store vehicles but was not part of their property. Mr. Banziger thanked the applicant for the opportunity to comment in the Informal Review process. He stated he recognized the difficulty of the site but was in agreement with Staff regarding the requirements of the D.O.P.; adding the proposal reminded him of something he would see further north on 19th Avenue and he thought the proposal should be more urban. He stated the applicant should think in terms of sustainability; noting it was a location that would be a gateway to the university. He stated four or five lane roads right up to the lot lines created the urban setting and would provide for connectivity to downtown in the future. He stated a public bench located closely to the intersection of the street would not be used but could be installed at a location that would link it to the existing park. He stated he discouraged more vehicular use of North 20th Avenue to provide for the safety of the children playing there. Ms. Zavora stated she agreed with previous DRB and Staff comments regarding the proposal providing a more urban feel. She noted the public plaza did not make sense as proposed as it was too near the intersection and she agreed with Mr. Banziger that it should be located instead to a more interior location on the site to provide a connection to the park. She stated 20th Avenue would be good for access to the site. She stated the landscape plan looked good and was a nice mix, but discouraged the proposed Black Ash as it was not a good choice for Bozeman. Mr. Rea stated he agreed with Mr. Banziger, Ms. Zavora, and Staff comments. He thanked the applicant for bringing the proposal to the DRB for Informal Review. He suggested pushing the 123 Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2008 4 structures to the north and having an anchor building relationship with Town & Country; adding that perpendicular isles of parking could be located off the front façade of Town & Country connecting the two sites – he noted CVS could then be pulled off the corner and the drive-thru could be located on the west side with an entry off of North 19th Avenue. He stated the proposed plan looked tortured and the site could allow for the businesses to steal patrons from the Town & Country without ever being in competition with them. He stated he could not in good conscience support the proposal due to the franchise element corner detail; adding he found it visually ugly and it was the cornerstone of franchise architecture. He encouraged the applicant to open the space up on the building façade and leave the sign the same, or to lessen the size of the sign. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with Staff’s recommendations from the Staff Memo. He noted he wished the applicant could start with a clean slate and create a destination instead of something thrown together haphazardly. He stated it would be a great opportunity to make the CVS store better than the existing CVS stores and he agreed with Mr. Banziger regarding sustainable building. He suggested LEED points could be attained for re-use, sustainability, etc. He stated the visibility on the corner could provide the applicant with the opportunity to present really good architecture. He noted he would not support the project as proposed. Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB and Staff comments. He wondered if the site would be a convenience site or a destination site. He wondered where the anchor would be located and where some of the easements were located; adding that the easements could possibly be modified. He stated Town & Country had a terrible parking lot due to the number of customers they generated; adding that Town & Country might be a better anchor than a structure at North 19th Avenue and Main Street. He suggested the cornice and the sign were certainly franchise architecture and suggested the relocation and reorientation of the CVS building. He stated someone would have to develop the corner eventually and indicated that CVS would not be the best tenant for the corner location. He stated he thought the project was being seen as incremental and the pad sites would come in for review later, but the whole site should be developed as opposed to only developing the individual pad sites. He stated he understood the site constraints but his feeling was that the regional design could be thrown out and something special could be instituted instead. He noted the site was important enough to think about a bigger vision for it. Mr. Pertzborn stated the narrow piece of land on the site was where it had become difficult; adding that if the whole island of land could be attained the proposed design would have been wonderful. He noted the key spot within the site was the corner location; noting the major issue was North 19th Avenue. Mr. Hoener stated CVS and grocery stores were competitors and most other stores did not want a CVS near their site. Vice Chairperson Pentecost suggested the amount of square footage the applicant wanted to achieve could be instituted in multilevel structures. Mr. Hoener responded CVS and many tenants did not want other tenants within the same building. Mr. Rea stated he was inclined to be as flexible on the regulations as possible as long as CVS was willing to be flexible. Chairperson Livingston stated that it seemed all the things that would not work financially for CVS were the things the community of Bozeman was seeking in a development. 124 Design Review Board Minutes – April 9, 2008 5 ITEM 4. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} There was no public available for comment at this time. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board 125 126 Northwest Corner of Main & 19th Re‐development  4 June 2008    The purpose of this application is seek informal comments on the re‐development of the northwest  corner of West Main Street and North 19th Avenue. The property is zoned B‐2 (Community Business  District) and falls within the West Main Street Class II Entryway Overlay District. The site is currently  used as JC Billion Automotive Sales & Service Center. Note that there are some significant site con‐ straints including a public access easement along a portion of the frontage on North 19th Avenue   and a 30‐foot sewer main easement on the western portion of the lot.     This proposal includes demolition of the existing buildings and construction of several new buildings  including a CVS Pharmacy and related site improvements such as landscaping, plazas, shared accesses,  and an interconnected parking and pedestrian circulation system. Other building footprints are shown  on the plan as conceptual with potential uses including a bank, office, and/or retail.     Because of the scale, prominence, and potential complexities associated with applying and   interpreting the Design Objectives Plan for this unique site, the applicant, The Velmeir Companies, has  requested that the City Commission review and comment on the informal plans. The following time‐ line summarizes the informal process and design development to date:    • 3.19.08 Informal Application Submitted: The first informal application included the CVS building in  the southeast portion of the site with two rows of parking in front and a pedestrian plaza to help  anchor and provide visual interest at the corner.     • 4.02.08 First DRC Informal Review: At the first DRC meeting, site layout, parking, access, water  and sewer infrastructure, stormwater facilities, easements, and phasing were all discussed.     • 4.09.08 Second DRC Informal Review: At the second DRC meeting, the Engineering Department  gave written comments generally related to the items discussed in the first meeting.     • 4.09.08 First DRB Review: Planning Staff and the DRB were not supportive of the proposed site  layout citing that the Design Objectives Plan called for buildings closer to the street setbacks,       increased connectivity between properties, limited “franchise elements” in the building design,   and no drive‐thrus facing the main entryways.     • 5.02.08 Revised Informal Site Plan Submitted: Based on the DRB comments, the applicants        decided to pursue an alternative site layout that included the buildings pushed up along the       setback lines with shared parking, increased pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and enhanced  pedestrian plazas. The major site layout change was that the CVS building was shifted to the      center of the site with a smaller retail building at the corner. Drive access locations and basic      infrastructure were not changed.     • 5.14.08 Second DRB Review: The DRB was generally supportive of the revised layout with some  minor site adjustments. After this second DRB meeting, the applicants felt comfortable with the  site layout but still wanted the City Commission to review the plans prior to proceeding with the  actual purchase of the lot and the submittal of a Preliminary Site Plan application. The Planning  Office recommended also including revised elevations for City Commission review.     • 6.04.08 Revised Elevations Submitted: The revised elevations and adjusted site plan were submit‐ ted to the Planning Office for scheduling.     At this time, we are seeking comments from the City Commission regarding the overall schematic site  plan and elevations to determine if this project will move forward. Please note that the plans will be  further developed  in terms of landscaping, parking, plazas, and building details prior to submittal of a  Preliminary Site Plan Application.     Revised Narrative 127 128 129 130 131 Northwest Corner   of Main & 19th   Re‐development    Informal Application   March 2008  132 133 Representatives Information: Name: Intrinsik Architecture (Susan Kozub) Email Address: skozub@intrinsikarchitecture.com Mailing Address: 111 North Tracy Avenue, Bozeman Montana 59715 Phone: 406.582.8988 FAX: 406.582.8911 Name: URS Corporation (Michael Brown) Email Address: michael_s_brown@urscorp.com Mailing Address: 3950 Sparks Drive SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 Phone: 616.574.8303 FAX: 616.574.8542 In addition to the property owner and applicant, please also send all correspondence to the representatives listed above. 134 Northwest Corner of Main & 19th Re‐development  Project Team   Anchor Tenant:  Developer/  Project Manager:  Architect of Record/ Engineer:  Survey:  Planning Consultants:  135 Northwest Corner of Main & 19th Re‐development  Narrative  The purpose of this application is seek informal comments on the re‐development of the  northwest corner of West Main Street and North 19th Avenue. The property is zoned   B‐2 (Community Business District) and falls within the West Main Street Class II Entryway  Overlay District. The site is currently used as JC Billion Automotive Sales & Service Center.      This proposal includes demolition of the existing buildings and construction of several new  buildings including a new CVS Pharmacy, a bank, three retail buildings and related site   improvements including landscaping, an entrance plaza, shared accesses, and an intercon‐ nected parking and pedestrian circulation system. At this time, we are seeking comments on  the overall schematic site plan. Note that we have included some basic landscaping and eleva‐ tions of the pharmacy for general reference and to begin the conversation. The landscape plan  and elevations will obviously be further developed prior to submittal of a Preliminary Site Plan  Application.      An integral part of the conceptual layout includes the main entrance of the pharmacy   Directly addressing the intersection. This will add vitality, street‐level interest and, most   importantly, people to this corner. The multi‐lane intersection is simply not conducive to   pedestrian traffic levels that justify having a building entrance with no parking nearby.  The  design team explored several other potential layouts but determined, based on a balance   between the program and the Design Objectives Plan, that having two rows of parking   combined with an accentuated main entrance and corner pedestrian plaza would be a better  option than proposing a little‐used secondary entrance and meaningless fenestration.    Note that there are some significant site constraints including a public access easement along  a portion of the frontage on North 19th Avenue and a 30‐foot sewer easement in the western  portion of the lot.     Please refer the attached exhibits and drawings for additional information. Thank you for your  time and careful consideration.   136 Northwest Corner of Main & 19th Re‐development   Existing Site Photos  137 Aerial Photograph Source: City of Bozeman GIS Dept. NTS Subject Property TNC Pierce  Flooring Jackpot  Casino Ressler  Automotive Urgent  Care Kirk Park Northwest Corner of Main & 19th Re‐development 138 139 140 141 142 143