Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-07 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2007 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:27 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Christopher Livingston Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Elissa Zavora Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mel Howe Bill Rea Walter Banziger Visitors Present Chris Budeski Randy Twist Jeff Good Brian Tobiczyk ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2007. Chairperson Livingston stated that on page 3, paragraph 5 should read “a first step to working with LEED” instead of “easier than working with LEED”. MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes of September 26, 2007 with corrections. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 3. 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, and Brian Tobiczyk joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting that at the last meeting of the DRB the project had been opened and continued to this date to provide time for the applicant to modify the proposal. He stated the applicant had put together ideas to address the concerns of the DRB for review. Mr. Good stated they had taken to heart the DRB comments from the last meeting. He stated he had consolidated the elevations into one plan and the previous drawing had been incorrectly scaled which had been corrected. He stated the covered walkway feature was new to the proposed Kohls elevation. He stated the front entrance had been modified to include block to be used on the center as well as on the tower feature; adding it would bring consistency to the main facade. He stated they would still be using the ceramic tile and added that the trellis walkway element had been included in the revised plans. He stated the area between the existing Staples building and the Kohls building would have green space with board on board fence for screening; adding planting would be included. He stated the south elevation would be the same as the DRB reviewed last time except he had adjusted the height to accurately depict how the wall would be seen from the pavement level; adding it would only be noticeable on one corner. He stated the rear of the building was the same as originally proposed. Mr. Tobiczyk stated an inaccuracy that needed to be clarified was a shadow depicted on the front elevation would really be a recessed, tailored concrete product with EFIS. He stated it would be scored and would accentuate the mullions. Mr. Rea asked for clarification. Mr. Tobiczyk directed his attention to locations on the elevation in question. Ms. Zavora asked if the fence were installed, what the plans would be for the vacant lot adjacent. Planner Skelton responded public safety would be a primary concern and he thought it would be an opportunity for recreation in the summer months for tenants, their patrons, and the general public. Ms. Zavora asked what would go on behind the fence. Mr. Twist responded it would be graded and seeded. Ms. Zavora asked if there would be irrigated grass and trees. Mr. Good responded there would be. Ms. Zavora asked if there would still be room for construction. Mr. Good responded there would be a buffer of twenty feet and the concrete might be lost when the new construction began. Mr. Budeski added the 10 foot wide sidewalk would allow for more grass in that location. Mr. Good directed Ms. Zavora to that location on the site plan. Ms. Zavora asked if the curb line had been accurately depicted regardless of what would happen on the site. Mr. Budeski responded it had. Mr. Rea stated he was curious about the width of the entry. Mr. Tobiczyk responded it would be roughly 7 feet. Mr. Rea asked if the trellis in one location would be open or covered. Mr. Tobiczyk responded there would be an eyebrow piece installed to provide for light. Ms. Zavora asked what the back side of the fenced area would look like. Mr. Budeski responded it would be open for security reasons. Mr. Good added it would be a painted, open service area with grassland. Mr. Budeski added the road would be paved, but there would be a short fence to detour traffic. Mr. Rea asked what the porcelain tile proposed on the Kohls pylon would look like. Mr. Good explained it would be rustic colored (deep brown) shiny, speckled material. Mr. Rea suggested the use of slate. He asked if the signs were backlit. Mr. Tobiczyk responded they would be internally lit. Mr. Howe asked if the tower elements on the corners were functional above the first level. Mr. Tobiczyk responded they would not be functional. Mr. Banziger asked if the roof would match the facades in color and in material. Mr. Good responded that it would. Mr. Banziger asked if the purpose of fencing the open area was to save money by not having to maintain landscaping. Mr. Budeski responded the primary purpose was for security, but saving money was a concern as well. Mr. Banziger suggested that the fenced area could be considered a place to hide and might collect garbage. Mr. Budeski responded the back wall would have lighting and the property would be maintained. Mr. Banziger suggested that more money might be spent trying to keep people out of it as opposed to creating an open area for people to go. He asked if there were any other Kohls that looked like the one proposed as it contained new tress work. Mr. Tobiczyk responded it would not look like any other Kohls. Mr. Budeski added that the applicant had wanted something appealing from the parking lot, but needed a barrier to prevent people from driving to the rear of the structure. He stated the landscaping and cleanliness were always maintained by Gallatin Center. Mr. Banziger asked if outdoor storage would be permitted. Mr. Budeski responded outdoor storage would not be allowed. Ms. Zavora asked the timeframe for getting another tenant in the vacant lot adjacent to the site; requesting the minimum amount of time until the tenant began construction. Mr. Twist responded it would generally be 6-8 months before construction began. Mr. Budeski added that the entire parking lot would need to be built prior to construction of the structure according to previous conditions of approval. Mr. Twist added it was their hope to commence construction next year. Ms. Zavora asked how long the trees would be allowed to stay in their proposed locations. Mr. Twist responded it might only be until next summer. Chairperson Livingston asked the material used for the u-shaped feature. Mr. Tobiczyk responded it would be block. Ms. Zavora asked if the trees would ever get planted if the tenant on the vacant lot commenced the construction process. Mr. Good responded they were obligated to put landscaping in place once Kohls opened and it would not be removed until construction began on the next tenant. Ms. Zavora asked if the trees could be planted before everything else. Mr. Good responded they would want everything installed at once so the contractor would not have to go to the site twice. Planner Skelton responded a Temporary Occupancy could be granted without the landscaping being completed, but the infrastructure would need to be completed first. Mr. Twist added they were estimating that the landscaping would be installed next summer. Mr. Budeski added that the irrigation lines would be installed at the same time as the landscaping and they would be done close to last; adding the trees could be placed in a sawdust pile somewhere to continue growing if they ended up removing them. Chairperson Livingston suggested the timeframe would be more obvious if no proposed tenant discussions had been taking place. Ms. Zavora stated she did not really like the proposed fence and suggested an entire season of watering would be needed to establish the vegetation in that location. Mr. Budeski responded it would be seeded next spring due to construction traffic; adding the building wouldn’t be completed until next fall. Ms. Zavora stated the seeding might not take and would need to be redone. Mr. Twist responded they would do what was necessary; adding that it might include reseeding. Ms. Zavora stated she understood the chain link fence proposed for the backside and suggested planting more trees in that location to detour people from driving through. Mr. Budeski responded trees would need to be irrigated and they would prefer not to do that. Mr. Twist responded that there would need to be too many trees to provide for a barrier. Ms. Zavora stated her concern was that area becoming barren. Mr. Budeski responded there was a stream corridor near the site that would provide water to the grass and prevent it from becoming a barren area. Mr. Rea stated he commended the applicant on their credibility based on what they had done in the past. He stated his only concern would be dust devils that Bozeman got in the summer and he would like to see native grasses that would not need to be irrigated to keep the dust levels down. He stated the public side of the fence should include some inexpensive 12 volt lighting to “wash” it and improve its appearance and he was confident that Gallatin Center would maintain that area. He stated he was a little concerned with the pilaster on the northeast corner as it was depicted wrapping around the north elevation. Mr. Good responded the applicant envisioned the roof element as three dimensional. Mr. Tobiczyk added that property line issued prevented them from doing much in that location. Mr. Twist added the color of the block should be repeated. Mr. Tobiczyk suggested the tower element should be pushed in. Mr. Rea suggested some method of delineating the tower to hold the corner and prevent a blank north elevation. Mr. Tobiczyk responded the tenant next to them could come right to the edge of the structure or could be stepped back. Mr. Good explained there would be a differential and a bump out would be problematic. Mr. Tobiczyk suggested a reveal could be used. Mr. Rea suggested a blank north wall would discourage him from going to Kohls. He stated he hated EFIS, but he did like the other proposed materials. He stated he thought the sign could be better dealt with. Mr. Howe stated there were a lot of corner towers proposed recently along North 19th Avenue; adding that it made the project look more attractive. He stated he commended the designers on the proposal as it contained varied elements and was more well developed; adding he liked the revised proposal better than the original. Mr. Banziger stated he appreciated the applicant redeveloping the original proposal and taking the time to come back to the DRB for review. He stated the timber truss added uniqueness and interest to the proposed structure. He stated the open trellis would make the entry more light and inviting. He stated he agreed with Mr. Rea regarding the tower feature and the blank elevation. He stated it bothered him that the cedar fence seemed to be a bit residential alongside a commercial development. He stated he understood that the applicant did not want to spend a lot of money for landscaping of the court between buildings, but suggested it could be a gathering space with play ground style features instituted. He stated he would encourage fence lighting and wall pack lighting for the rear of the building. Chairperson Livingston stated he did not think the proposed fence would be a big deal; adding it would be marginal space. He stated he thought there would be a site line issue on the corner elevation with a view from the west and he encouraged the applicant to extend the feature back to provide for the view from the trail. Mr. Tobiczyk responded split faced CMU would be used to provide for the view and would be easier to construct. Chairperson Livingston stated he could not help but think it was the same proposal the DRB had reviewed previously with the addition of the canopy proposed for the front façade. He suggested not having a wood cap at the top of the proposed tile. He also thought the proposal appeared glued together. He stated he recognized that the Kohls signage was important but that the original entry was not compatible with the new added canopy. He suggested the applicant had proposed a “postage stamp” redesign for the building. He stated he was disappointed in the proposal. MOTION: Ms. Zavora moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director with Staff conditions and the amendment of condition #6 to include the language “temporarily irrigated per City of Bozeman Standards”, and the amendment of condition #7 to include the language “include covered walkway and trellis” and “including trees planted for future spading” and “as shown in the plans presented 10/10/07”. The motion carried 4-1 with Chairperson Livingston in opposition. Mr. Rea asked if the DRB wanted to discuss the proposed entryway more; adding he thought the context of the neighborhood it would be located in was not particularly inspired. Mr. Howe stated he was not criticizing the tower feature, but was only emphasizing that the tower feature was better than nothing. 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 6:48 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board