HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-07 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Christopher Livingston Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Elissa Zavora Dave Skelton, Senior Planner
Mel Howe Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Bill Rea
Walter Banziger
Visitors Present
Scott Bechtle
Beau Mossman
Chris Budeski
Randy Twist
Jeff Good
Henry Kurasaki
Brian Tobiczyk
Dave Jarrett
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2007.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes of September 12, 2007 as presented. The motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW
1. Cowdrey Towers Informal #I-07022 (Krueger)
East of Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse
* An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of nine, seven-story mixed-use buildings and related site improvements.
Scott Bechtle and Beau Mossman joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Memo noting which boards/commissions would be reviewing the proposal. He stated the
DRB would be reviewing the Entryway Corridor criteria of the submittal. He stated there were two PUD’s overlaying the site; adding that the current land-use did not fit with the proposal.
He stated the proposal would be a mixed-use project and had ~80% of residential development included. He stated Staff would like direction on the review process for the formal submittal
of the proposal and comments on the proposed design.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Ms. Zavora seconded, to allow the applicant to present revised drawings of the proposed development. The motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Bechtle stated the applicant had spoken with Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders to
begin the process of Informal Review and revisions had since been made to the original proposal to exclude the underground parking and commercial uses on the ground floor. He stated
he had reduced the amount of proposed residential development to less than 70%. He stated he had driven by the site and was contemplating what their proposal would feel like from the
street; adding that the applicant wanted to open up a view of the project from the street. He stated parking would be provided in each building for the residential components and there
would be separate parking structures for the commercial elements of the development. He stated the appearance of the project would create a downtown look and the parking would be screened
with windows; adding they thought it would be better if the project had a street level appearance. Mr. Mossman added that moving the largest building next to the rear elevation of Lowe’s
would cause the development to present itself better. Mr. Bechtle stated that the applicant had taken a green approach to the proposed roofs and they were looking into LEED certification.
He stated he thought it would be a great use for the area and would add activity. He suggested it would make sense to have residential development next to commercial development; adding
that building vertical instead of out would be a good approach.
Mr. Rea asked for clarification on where the residential elements of the proposal would be located. Mr. Bechtle explained.
Mr. Banziger asked the architectural and landscape character of the street facing the rear of Lowe’s. Mr. Bechtle responded the scale would be kept down and it would be broken up without
any stark views. Mr. Banziger stated his concern was that two stark walls would create the perception of an alley. Mr. Bechtle responded that the rear of the structure would be more
oriented to services and would not have the same character as the front of the structure. Mr. Banziger asked if the proposal had been modeled after a Reston Town Center in Virginia,
for instance. Mr. Mossman responded it had not and the approach had been to provide more of a residential Oregon feeling with elements from downtown Bozeman. Mr. Bechtle added they
had first defined the spaces in the structures and then worked out the spaces between the structures.
Mr. Howe asked how long it would take until the development was completely built out. Mr. Bechtle responded the client would like to build one after another structure until it was complete,
but the time frame would ultimately be based on economics (he suggested a few years time and a possibility of 20 years).
Ms. Zavora asked if the applicant was intending all the buildings be mixed residential and commercial. Mr. Bechtle responded that was the intention. Ms. Zavora asked the purpose of
the trees proposed in the boulevard. Mr. Bechtle responded they were meant to be street trees in the boulevard. Mr. Mossman added they would also be screening the parking. Ms. Zavora
asked if each structure would have a green roof. Mr. Bechtle responded they had not defined whether or not green roofs would be used; adding that spaces too large would cause a feeling
of emptiness and green roofs and balconies would soften the structure and its height.
Chairperson Livingston asked if there was a platted roadway on the site. Mr. Bechtle explained that there would need to be boundary relocation so that street easements and services
could be located in that location. Chairperson Livingston stated that there were two percentages involved with the residential portion of the development and asked Planner Krueger to
explain. Planner Krueger responded that there was 49% residential development allowed in Regional Commercial and the Urban Mixed-Use District called out 70% or less residential components
within the development.
Ms. Zavora stated she liked the revised proposal that placed the largest building near Lowe’s and she liked the balconies and the idea of the green roofs. She stated she was happy to
see the applicant had gone above and beyond by proposing more than four inches depth for the green roof and including trees. She added that she was supportive of the proposal.
Mr. Rea stated the City seemed to be pushing for a denser core in town and less sprawl; adding that the parkland requirements would be more difficult to achieve and suggesting more flexibility
with regard to those requirements. He stated the parts of Portland that were more diverse and contained more of a mixture of uses were more prosperous; suggesting that the applicant
provide for a more diverse group of people with mixed-use development and not necessarily workforce housing. He stated he thought the applicant should think carefully about the phasing
plan for the development of the site as the surface parking could possibly be there for awhile before anything else was built. Mr. Bechtle responded the public space would be part of
the first phase of development as it would be important to the success of the proposal. Mr. Rea suggested the applicant take into consideration the neighboring parcel to the east to
provide pedestrian and bike connections. Mr. Mossman responded that had been the client’s intent. Mr. Rea stated he would love to see a streamline bus node included in the proposal
and some sort of conditioned, heated transit center. He stated with a project of this size the applicant should look into LEED certification and added that storage areas might be a
good idea.
Mr. Banziger stated he was intrigued by what the applicant had presented. He stated he liked hearing that the there would be screened parking and he agreed with Ms. Zavora regarding
the institution of green roofs and with Mr. Rea regarding diversity in uses. He stated anything in there would be temporary and could become a permanent structure and suggested designing
each structure as a permanent structure. He cautioned the applicant not to present the appearance of an alley and they take into consideration the connection of bike and pedestrian
paths and their connections to the shopping centers to the south and west. He stated he liked what he was seeing in the proposal and he was supportive of the project.
Mr. Howe stated he was excited to see the project as Bozeman would certainly economically benefit from its development. He stated he could see why the workforce housing might need to
be off site, but he wished it were otherwise. He stated he thought it would be nice to see the proposal in a later stage.
Chairperson Livingston stated the proposal appeared to be moving in a good direction based on the revisions that had been made since the DRB had received their packets. He stated the
applicant had addressed many of the pedestrian and street level issues that Staff had been concerned with. He stated there would not be enough housing for the proposal to become a
node in and of itself and there would be people driving from across town that would need parking. He noted that he had recently been in California and had discussed load reduction and
re-use energy strategies with Arup and Associates; adding that these methods would be the first step to working with LEED. He stated the proposal was moving in a very good direction
but would be a massive project with many considerations. Mr. Bechtle responded they had been working with someone from LEED and would continue to do so.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Gallatin Center Lot 12 Mods to FSP #Z-07204 (Skelton)
Northwest of Max Avenue and Cattail Street
* A request to consider modifications to an approved Final Site Plan for Lot 12 of the Gallatin Center Subdivision.
Chris Budeski, Randy Twist, Jeff Good, Henry Kurasaki, and Brian Tobiczyk joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting the development of Lot 12 in
Gallatin Center had been conditionally approved as the applicant was uncertain of the tenant in the buildings; adding Kohl’s would be the tenant in the structure. He stated the larger
parcels to the southwest would be residential development and the orientation of the structure was in context to those residential developments. He stated the exterior elevations addressed
the original presentation of the facades of the structure and directed the DRB to review the proposed change of footprint which would cause the structure to be narrower and deeper.
He suggested there would be only two issues with the proposal; i.e. the primary entrance to Kohl’s and its pedestrian scale, and the presentation of the structure to the surrounding
residential developments. He stated the design had been modified to address Staff conditions and the applicant was prepared to comply with those conditions in concert with the original
approval.
Mr. Rea asked for clarification regarding the west 10 feet of the east façade and pedestrian circulation in that location. Mr. Budeski asked that the front 10 feet be used to maintain
to the integrity of the circulation. Planner Skelton responded he had no problems with that request and would discuss it further with the applicant.
Mr. Kurasaki presented to the DRB a rendition of the proposed entry to Kohl’s and explained the materials that would be used. He stated the materials would match the existing structures
on the site and porcelain tile would be used for the gateway in the front of their entrance. He stated the change in materials and depth would be obvious along the entry. He stated
there would be a raised planter bed and trellis to provide a pedestrian scale to the proposal; adding there would be grade level planters and trees in some locations.
Mr. Rea asked what the south elevation would look like. Mr. Good explained the materials and schemes that would be used on the south elevation as it would be broken into thirds; adding
that red, standing seam metal would be used for the roofing. He stated the awning’s would be projected standing seam metal and would be similar to the small shop space fronting N. 19th
Avenue. Mr. Budeski added that the loading bay in the center of the south elevation would be narrower than it appeared in the rendering and would be buffered by street trees and landscaping.
Mr. Good added that the proposed Kohl’s would have small shop space on one side and the completion of the plaza area would connect Kohl’s to the other shops. Mr. Budeski added that
a lot of the rendering appeared to be drivit and only a small amount of it would actually be used. Mr. Kurasaki pointed out which portions would be porcelain tile.
Mr. Banziger asked what would set this Kohl’s apart from any other Kohl’s in the country. Mr. Kurasaki responded the entrance was the only similarity and the rest of the proposal was
intended to match the development.
Mr. Rea asked if there was a greater distance than proposed for a setback in one location. Mr. Tobiczyk responded the distance was greater and the representation was inaccurate.
Ms. Zavora asked if there would be trees at grade level or in the planters. Mr. Kurasaki
responded the trees would be outside the raised planters at grade level. Ms. Zavora asked why the planter being located further from the building would increase the depth of the sidewalk
in that location. Mr. Budeski explained that five feet would be added.
Chairperson Livingston asked if the proposed elevation satisfied item #4 in the Staff conditions of approval. Planner Skelton responded the site was in the proximity of residential
development and the key trail corridor and suggested more sensitivity on those façades. Chairperson Livingston asked if item #6 in the Staff conditions of approval meant that there
would need to be something like a lawn in that location. Planner Skelton responded that it would need to be some type of mix of landscaping without long term improvements to provide
for later development. Chairperson Livingston asked what the intention was for the north elevation of Kohl’s and the south elevation of Staples before those structures screening those
facades would be built. Mr. Good and Mr. Tobiczyk responded those sides would be painted to match the fronts of the structures.
Mr. Rea stated he was not seeing anything substantially different in the south elevation sketch; adding that the red roof would fit in with the surrounding development better. He stated
he was supportive of the south elevation but was concerned with blank elevations. He suggested a motion to include a covered walkway and trellis to provide a walkway and a continuation
of that pedestrian pathway. He stated he did not support the proposed franchise architecture portion of the proposal and suggested the applicant not institute franchise features. He
stated he did not see any increase in the level of architectural quality of the development; rather a decrease. He suggested the applicant respect the regulations in the UDO and DOP
and consult a local architect who would be familiar with those regulations. Mr. Tobiczyk asked what features Mr. Rea did not like in the proposal. Mr. Rea responded he had a hard time
with EFIS though there was not much proposed, but the franchise architecture seemed like a mid-eighties, post modern approach and the DRB would like to see a respectful approach to the
design of structures in the City of Bozeman. Mr. Tobiczyk responded that there would be similarities to Staples once the building was constructed; adding that the level proposed would
be nicer than the existing development on the site. He presented an example of the glazing that would be included on the structure. Mr. Rea insisted the franchise architecture was
apparent in the current proposal. Mr. Good suggested the asymmetrical design of the proposal was how the applicant had attempted to pull away from the franchise architecture.
Mr. Banziger stated that the proposed south elevation maintained the development’s character and he agreed with Mr. Rea that the ends of structures would be a blank façade until the
next structure was built; he suggested there should be a seating area in those locations until such a time as the next structure was built. He stated he agreed with Mr. Rea’s comments
regarding the franchise architecture of the proposed Kohl’s building. He stated he would like to see the entry done differently with the use of different materials that would make it
unique from the other Kohl’s stores around the country.
Mr. Howe stated he had not seen Kohl’s anywhere and did not really see a problem with the proposed façade unless it did look like the others around the country. He stated he agreed
with previous DRB comments regarding the south elevation.
Ms. Zavora asked what had been intended with condition #7 addressing the completion of the pedestrian walkway. Planner Skelton explained he wanted to see more than a five foot sidewalk
in that location. Ms. Zavora asked the minimum number of feet that would be needed to build a structure. Mr. Budeski responded 20 feet would be more appropriate, but the ten feet of
sidewalk would be torn out anyway. Ms. Zavora stated she agreed with Mr. Rea that the sidewalk should be built out completely until the other structures were completed. Mr. Budeski
suggested trees could be put in behind the ten foot sidewalks and relocated at a later date. Ms. Zavora suggested temporary irrigation be installed. Mr. Budeski responded they did
not know how long it would be until the next building was constructed.
Chairperson Livingston stated he thought the proposed elevation from the August 22nd, 2007 applicant submittal had satisfied Staff condition #4. He stated there were inaccuracies that
would need to be pointed out with regard to Kohl’s; adding there would be a parapet height and the south elevation of Kohl’s would be seen. He suggested some area above the parapet height
would need to be tan, split-faced CMU. He stated he would recommend more than single faced CMU walls and paint to prevent moisture from pushing through the surface. He stated he did
not know where the Kohl’s was that was depicted in the color renderings, but he almost liked it better than the one presented for Bozeman; adding he thought it had to do with the box
design itself. He stated it was not important if he liked the design, but the proposed split-faced CMU and band would not be consistent with the rest of the development. He suggested
the use of more detail to make the box itself more palatable; adding that his objection to the proposed Kohl’s was that the majority of the surface was minimally detailed. He suggested
the applicant look at the complex as a whole to provide for a more cohesive, acceptable structure. He stated he would like to see something in the conditions that would address the
fenestration of the structure. He suggested more planting to help break up the facades.
Mr. Tobiczyk suggested methods by which he could more closely match the existing structures within the development. Mr. Rea responded he was on the right track, but would need time
to revise the submittal to reflect those changes.
Mr. Jarrett stated he thought the front façade of Kohl’s was the primary concern. Chairperson Livingston added that the DRB commonly requested articulation of the facades of structures;
i.e. more pattern, fenestration, etc.
MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to continue Gallatin Center Lot 12 Mods to FSP #Z-07204 to the next meeting of the DRB. The motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Rea expressed his concern with regard to the presentation of the south elevation and suggested the interim be dealt with.
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 7:53 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board