Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-24-06 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2006 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Members Present Staff Present Dawn Smith David Skelton, Senior Planner Michael Pentecost Susan Kozub, Associate Planner Mel Howe Kelly Marple, Recording Secretary Scott Hedglin Visitors Present Jamie Morris – Land Use Planning Consultant Jessica – Architect Steve Robert – Ridge Casey Hart – Partner Chris Budeski John Davison Byron Pavao Jim Ullman ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MAY 10, 2006. Chairperson Dawn Smith called for any corrections to the minutes of May 10, 2006. Chairperson Smith made a motion to approve May 10 minutes. Skip. Susan Kozub announced a reminder for this Thursday, May 25 there will be a community workshop at the Grantree on N. 7th Avenue, tomorrow night. It would be great to get some design review board members to attend. Dawn Smith mentioned that she was still implementing our new meeting format. Staff presentation Application of Presentation Board Questions of Staff and/or Applicant. ITEM 3. CONSENT ITEM IHOP Sketch Plan/COA #Z-06016 (Kozub) Southwest corner of Tshache Lane and North 19th Avenue A Sketch Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 4,993 square foot restaurant with related site improvements. Dawn Smith asked if anyone wants to take IHOP off the consent item. Chairperson Smith asked all those in favor of the consent item – all said aye. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. The Ridge Concept PUD #Z-06103 (Kozub) 4181 Fallon Street * A Concept Planned Unit Development for a mixed use complex to include the existing athletic club, 7 new buildings and related site improvements on Lot 1 of Minor Subdivision No. 295 Spring Creek Village Resort and Lot 2-D of Minor Subdivision No. 365A on 12.22 acres zoned R-O (Residential Office) District and B-P (Business Park) District. Associate Planner Susan Kozub noted the location of the property. She stated that the southern lot is on the Business Park District, and the smaller northern lot is on the Residential Office District. She reviewed that the PUD includes expansions to the existing Ridge, the construction of seven new mixed-use buildings, some open space enhancements and related site improvements. Ms. Kozub then listed the uses identified in the application and other potential uses. Just as an FYI Planner Kozub mentioned that the proposal is also undergoing review for a subdivision pre-application, which does not concern the DRB that much, just to be aware there will be lots underneath these new buildings with a common shared open space and parking area in the central part. Planner Kozub stated that they are requesting several relaxations, one is for reduced setbacks in RO, also reduced setbacks in BP. They are also asking for relaxation for lot area and width, to allow lots in the BP to be less than required, and uses to relaxation to allow additional uses in the BP zone. She stated that overall, staff is supportive of the career development of this property, just looking for comments from the DRB related to the design and overall site layout for this project. She said they did pull out a few comments beginning on page four of the staff report for performance points – and staff would like to see a diagram that shows specifically what they are counting toward open space with the next stage of the submittal just so can make sure with what is being counted. Planner Kozub had a few comments in terms of pedestrian and bicycle circulation. One was two sidewalk connections to Rivali in close proximity to each other near building 6 - is there a need for the pedestrian path to continue here, our concern is that it doesn’t quite connect to anywhere except to the drive-thru and see that as a potential pedestrian safety issue with people pulling in and out of the drive-thru. Better to keep that as landscaped area and promote pedestrians coming through the southern spine to then connect to the north-south pedestrian circulation system. Planner Kozub asked what the DRB thought about an additional pedestrian connection to Rivali Street. She said that there is not a lot of landscaping detail at this stage, which is common, but staff is looking to see if anyone has any specific comments or concerns or something they would like to see in the next stage that would be helpful. Regarding lighting details, Planner Kozub stated that staff would like to see some coordinated unique development guidelines so that the lighting is unique to buildings but also unifies PUD as whole. She noted that there are 463 standard parking spaces and 21 disabled-accessible parking spaces, and she stated that at the next stage we will get involved in parking details. She stated that staff would like to see a comprehensive signage plan with a unifying theme, but still unique signage per tenant. She noted that for the public areas and plazas there is the meditation park and the track and most of the usable open spaces along the west and in the central of the parking lot. Planning staff discussed that perhaps the meditation park should be shifted so that the park space it is not broken up by drive access. Planner Kozub said that regarding building design, the applicants have included some details for elevations so you can get a general feel for the architecture they are thinking about. Planner Kozub then said that questions will be welcomed after the applicants present. Jamie Morris then stated that they concur with the idea to continue to look for a unified theme of development. Ms. Morris said that they are looking for supportive uses for the Ridge because of their high traffic level, and are looking to potentially provide convenience for people who attend the Ridge to work out. Ms. Morris made some suggested uses: florist, hair dresser, coffee shop, deli, some offices, and a car spa where valet would wash car while working out. Ms. Morris stated that approximately 2¼ acres of open space is spread out throughout the subdivision between two lots, with several uses identified; meditation park in middle to enjoy outdoors, coffee, lunch, and in the larger area the track may be used for other activities. Ms. Morris stated that setbacks as far as the relaxations go – the primary one in the BP zone is to allow for supportive uses and the UDO uses are not outlined in the 20-20 plan which identifies that limited retail is permitted. The setback relaxation and lot size is more in relation to how we are setting it up to the subdivision – each building would have a lot associated with it, but pretty minimal in size. Ms. Morris stated that every parking lot and open space would be held in common only to have the lots, and she mentioned that the Stadium Center was a good example. Ms. Morris said they are supportive of recommendations thus far, and have no issues with changing sidewalk configurations. She said that they are looking for opportunity to go through with Phase One and will have preliminary sketches for a couple of building designs, and will have more detail on the buildings, floor plans, and development guidelines. Ms. Morris stated that within those lot lines, the reason they requested the reduction in lot size is because most of these lots are not going to meet the one-acre minimum lot requirement in the BP. She pointed out that this is a much better configuration - to allow everybody to utilize the common area for parking and open space, and that they are not trying to avoid providing unnecessary setbacks to the streetscape, it’s where the lot line goes into the parking lot, and rather than having the setbacks, that is what relaxation is for. Chairperson Smith asked if there were questions for staff or applicant. Michael Pentecost asked the applicant about the timing for each of the different phases. Steve Robert said probably three to four years. Mr. Pentecost then ascertained with the team that Phase One is going to be the coffee shop (#3) and office buildings (#7 and #8). Michael Pentecost asked if there is a move going on in the city of adding on a mixed use, and is that being guided or directed toward property that is adjacent. Mr. Robert said that right now the proposal is just to add something to BUDO book - not to put anything on the map – the only official application they have is to add a zone to the book. Mr. Pentecost asked if they can define which spaces are public and which are private, and if the track open to public. Jamie Morris mentioned insurance liability. Steve Robert stated that it was a good question, and that their thought is that it would be fine, but they haven’t explored with insurance carrier and there is an obstacle course/challenge course which is open, but needs to be quarantined. Mr. Pentecost asked how would it be different if it was private, would there be signs/fenced off/barriers? Mr. Robert stated that the goal is to not have any barriers, an invisible fence. Mr. Pentecost asked if that would that be the same for the car wash, would it be public? Mr. Robert answered no, its intent and layout and business plan is to facilitate members’ ancillary needs and time savings, not to block out or entice outside draw. Mr. Pentecost stated that it appears public, but is not. Scott Hedglin posed a question to applicant regarding the proposed 463 parking spaces, he asked if there have been any calculations done on how many parking spots are needed versus how many are showing. Susan Kozub stated that it shows what they need, and that staff would be supportive of parking reductions because of all the shared uses if they want to add that to their list of relaxations. Mr. Hedglin asked a question regarding perimeter plantings – what is the setback that you are requesting on these lot lines versus where the buildings are going to will be placed, especially on Ferguson, the rear of the building is the public entry? Ms. Jamie Morris answered 20-foot rear yard in back entry, just enough to provide for any utilities/landscaping/entry to building, but that would be it. Dawn Smith asked about hedge planted on the north end of the parking lot, and whether it would be replanted, and she inquired about some water near the site. Mr. Robert affirmed that whatever they can salvage could be viable based on proximity. Jamie Morris explained that the water is an existing storm water retention pond back when the Ridge was constructed, but she still don’t know if it was constructed for this or for entire subdivision. Ms. Morris asked if Ms. Smith was talking about the wetlands vegetation – by definition it is not because the storm water facility is manmade, it is not wetlands. Dawn Smith then brought up Michael Pentecost’s previous question regarding public vs. private use – she noted that by the size of the parking lot it looks like it is for more than just Ridge members. Ms. Smith asked if they you looking to accommodate 500 people? Steve Robert said that the goal is to have what is required for the building. Jamie Morris said it is for the office buildings and people who are part of complex. Dawn Smith asked if they have talked to the highway department about getting the intersection of Huffine and Ferguson upgraded, she noted that it is a really bad intersection to add more traffic onto. Jamie acknowledged that a traffic study still needs to be done. Ms. Smith inquired on whether they had considered putting the track up against Ferguson and bringing buildings in a little bit and having the track there instead of hiding the track in the back. Steve Robert said that no, there is more safety where it is, and mostly the user’s psychology of safety. Dawn Smith then commented about the zoning on another parcel, chances are that it is going to be behind offices on that track. Dawn Smith asked for any other questions or comments at this time. Michael Pentecost had a couple of comments, the two story office buildings on Ferguson will be a tough act to follow, and the major arterial - he is concerned about the architecture presented - he likes it, but is nervous about the elevations, and that there will be high traffic, high exposure, and a lot of people are going to be paying attention to these. Dawn Smith asked for comments from Scott Hedglin. Mr. Hedglin said he would like to see in subsequent submittals a little of what Michael Pentecost is talking about. He stated that on the location of each of these buildings on each of these pads we are running into problems on where the utilities and trash enclosures are being located, and whether or not elements could be incorporated to screen them more effectively. He stated that the entryway sequence is a concern, and how does somebody coming to work in the morning come off of Ferguson to get coffee and get out, and noted that it is impossible to make 180 degree turn there. How are people actually going to be using the site, and how are some of these issues going to affect the placement of the buildings and the pad size. He also said that there was a question of the location of the meditation park being smack-dab in the middle, and is that appropriate or should we move it closer to track. Dawn Smith commented that she likes the overall concept and thinks having some more immediate-type uses and consolidating trips is great idea. Her concern is the location of the car wash, she doesn’t think it will present very well backing up to Ferguson and cars would be stacked there. She said she is concerned about the entrance from Ferguson across from East Granite, it is a steep entrance and she wants to know the ground elevation above Ferguson. Steve Robert mentioned that it was blown out once and redone and gets slick, and that it is a factor with the maintenance crews, they need sand on demand and if it melts it gets slick. He stated that they will make it work for the project. Dawn Smith had a concern about the type of architecture that is going to be used so it doesn’t have a dominating effect when you are walking/driving on Ferguson. She also voiced a concern with location of the drive-thru window and the inability to stack right there in the winter. She also stated that there is no connection from the pedestrian path from crossing on Ferguson, from east side of Ferguson on Granite and Rivali there is no way to get to sidewalk, have to use roadway. She said they need to get City’s permission to sign both of those crosswalks. Ms. Smith supported Planner Susan Kozub’s comment on the meditation park to slide it west a little bit to get a pass-thru to the buildings. Ms. Smith wanted to know if they are going to specifically call out a mix of uses or call out a BP list. Jamie Morris said it would be the BP list. Dawn Smith commented that she would like to see adult outdoor equipment and thinks it would be a great feature there. Jamie Morris stated that there was a drawing that showed the flow of traffic and they worried about funneling people through on one side and were concerned about cut-thru traffic, the idea is to provide a plaza area so people could slow down, stop and turn around. Ms. Smith mentioned that they could pull the west one east. Michael Pentecost asked if applicant had any reference where a green space was successful in a parking lot. Steve Robert answered that no, they did not, but it was nice in theory. Michael Pentecost asked how humans and autos correlate in that parking lot, and that they need landscaping element done well to make it really cool and done well. Jamie Smith said it was similar in idea to Cooper Park with a nice park feature in the middle. Susan Kozub said that from staff’s perspective it works well, like Cooper Park, but what would make it worse is if there was parking stalls abutting it on all sides, so that it was like a barrier, people would be constantly pulling in and out, but with the driving access it is more like parking spaces surrounding the park. Dawn Smith added that the parking lot needs some attention to internal pedestrian circulation. Scott Hedglin asked if they think current meditation park is going to be used, how would you get there from the Ridge? Planner Kozub marked it out on a map. Steve Robert mentioned that a similar concern is having design features that control speed. Ms. Smith suggested that they could put the track up against the building and call it a warm up. Chairperson Smith then thanked the members. B. Gallatin Center - Lot 12 SP/COA/Dev #Z-05270 (Skelton) Max Avenue and Cattail Street * A Final Site Plan Application to review exterior elevations as a condition of approval. Dawn Smith said she would start by asking how to expedite this process since this is a final review and motions have already been made. Senior Planner Dave Skelton said that the DRB added some additional conditions which Susan Kozub followed through on for the Development of Lot 11. He mentioned that this one was different because they knew that that tenant for Unit D was probably going to change, and there were some issues on how the final extra elevation was going to work. Senior Planner Skelton then discussed the key changes to the site plans; the changes through the parking lots, the two additional pathways on both sides that enter on the plaza, and the bigger issue of the extra elevations. He stated that in general they have met those conditions discussed by staff and the DRB, and will probably move forward with extra elevations A thru C which will set the tone and spirit when future tenant D comes in, and the theme will be kept consistent throughout. Chris Budeski asked how we can make sure theme stays consistent. Dave Skelton said that a cursory review by DRB and DRC will make sure theme is consistent, and how we deal with entrances, southwest corner, and entrance to Cattail Street. He also stated that they are open to suggestions on how to deal with the SE corner with one main entrance, maybe it will work. Senior Planner Skelton stated that there was more discussion on how to deal with the plaza in the front with the raised seating and said we need to see more detail on those raised planters. He said he thinks there is an adequate number, but wants to know which ones are raised planters. Need to confirm that with architect in Dallas. Other than that he believes we on the right track. Senior Planner Skelton asked for questions at this time. Senior Planner Skelton said that the deviation for the parking wasn’t granted, they eliminated a lot of the parking along Max Avenue and revised the parking along Cattail to get down under 125% – the key condition was that the extra elevations of this structure be reviewed and approved by DRB prior to the Planning Director issuing final site plan approval. Chris Budeski stated that he thought this would be the intent of tonight’s meeting – to go over the final elevations. Senior Planner Skelton stated that the west elevation that backed onto the watercourse corridor and the residential development and commercial development further to the west was the key elevation (he then pointed the elevations out on the ________ plan). He said that continuing the wainscot there, as well as some banding with variation and masonry units both split-face and smooth-face. He then exited to bring the color palette to the meeting. Chris Budeski stated that this DRB group may change in makeup and what we don’t want to do is have a new bunch of new faces coming up with a bunch of new ideas. Mr. Budeski said he would like something in the minutes to state that what they have approved and the theme has to be adhered to. Dawn Smith said that this refers to the tenant of Building D - once that issue comes up. Mr. Budeski reiterated this thought to Senior Planner Dave Skelton. Mr. Skelton said that there may be an issue as some franchise architects avoids the stigma of franchise architecture. Senior Planner Skelton asked Mr. Budeski if he was comfortable in knowing split-face vs. smooth-face. They decided that the banding is the smooth-face block. Chairperson Smith asked if there were any questions at this point. Senior Planner Skelton stated that we just confirmed that through this that it met that condition of approval on extra elevations. Scott Hedglin asked if these buildings are or are not subject to 100-foot uninterrupted parapet and jog amassing and all of that. Mr. Skelton affirmed that they are. Scott asked Senior Planner Skelton if Building D meets that as shown right now. Mr. Skelton said that he thinks the key to it again is the secondary entrance as it comes off of Cattail Street. Dawn Smith remarked that she believes the impression is that Building D is going to come in under a future separate application. She believes that Chris Budeski just wants to make sure that we carry the theme (i.e., colors and materials), not the concept, once Building D begins. Chris Budeski wanted to know what if the tenant comes back. Ms. Smith stated that we have not specifically in our motion called out that it did not include Building D. Mr. Skelton stated that the key is if we maintain the theme exclusive to the main entrances we’re okay, obviously those main entrances are going to change depending who those tenants are. The other three because they are smaller tenants, there is a good rhythm going there with those entrances. Dave Skelton said he was comfortable with the south and west facades realizing that those entrances are going to change, he stated that whether it’s a new formal after a year or it’s a revised application within a year it will come back to DRC and DRB as kind of an in-house review, I don’t think we have to notice it publicly. Mel Howe commented on maintaining the theme, he believes that the theme is the use of the materials, the banding, trellis details, the covered awnings on the back, the use of the scuppers – this document can be used as a future tool to judge that theme. Dawn Smith asked if Mr. Skelton wanted comments. Senior Planner Dave Skelton said that he just wanted to see it in an action that we find the proposal acceptable and meeting that condition for review board just so we have something. He said he thinks they discussed the minutes enough to know how to deal with Tenant D once he comes back in. Michael Pentecost stated that basically it’s just a statement that says we have reviewed and for the record we find the building acceptable. Dawn Smith asked for all those who concur. All were in agreement. Scott Hedglin stated that A B and C are okay. C. Rosauers SP/COA #Z-06113 (Skelton) Block 2, Phase One, Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. * A Preliminary Site Plan Application to construct a 60,045 sq. ft. supermarket, off street parking lot and related site improvements on 7.14 zoned B-2 (Community Business) District. The members John Davison, Byron Pavao, and Jim Ullman of Morrison Mairele joined the DRB. Senior Planner Dave Skelton said that the bigger picture is that the first official application for Bozeman Gateway Subdivision PUD. Mr. Skelton said that Bryon did an informal with John and Ted Mitchell who is the owner of the group back in February and we’ve included the minutes of your informal reviews to guide you in this evening’s discussion. As a reminder, we have given you your approved copy of the development manual for your library instead of the typical CD, you can get the CD if you’d like, although your computer may not be able to handle the large amount of memory. This is the guiding tool for development of the project, there was a lot of discussion on how this was going to be used and Ted Mitchell was concerned that it would be cast in concrete but it is more of a guiding tool based upon the merits of the proposal and the relaxations that have created it and we will always entertain other revisions to this manual site specific to each site. We might get a site that might need variances which obviously the city commission would be involved, exclusive of that, DRB and staff would review it and make recommendations to the planning director. The Planning Director will make the decision on this application on June 19th. You are welcome to use this, the proposal, the UDO and the design objective plan for _____ (Benchway?) corridors. Since Brian Krueger was on the DRB and is now on the staff we are going to set up a format on our review, and we made reference to the development manual as well as the design objective plans under each criteria. We will refer to pages in the manual when we review the criteria and sections of the design guidelines and the _____ corridors so we don’t have to go totally through the manual. Mr. Skelton noted the location and the intersection of this project and described it as the Gateway to Bozeman. With the exception of a few comments we are on the right path to the architectural treatment of the building. Staff reports starting on Page 3 – Green space, there are four watercourses within the master plan for the development - one is along the eastern boundary of the property and we believe that this project will maintain the integrity of the provisions for the green space. Auto connections looked good, there is no direct access from Main Street but an access coming off Harmon Ditch Blvd. and then from Fowler thru Technology Blvd. which is the lifestyle Main Street, so the circulations look pretty good. The pedestrian and bicycle connections – the applicant has attempted to focus on perimeter circulation on west main street, fowler, the pedestrian trail within the ______ corridor as well as their plaza along the east façade. Chapter One of the Design Objective Plans calls for internal walkways so there has been some discussion on the possible need for at least one east/west pathway through the parking lot to connect the east/west connectivity. As we have done with Wal-Mart and Albertson’s –we are going to have to address the treatment of the plaza as far as the patrons that use the commercial buildings. The street character looks fine – even though this is Phase One – all edgeway corridor improvements along Main Street are going to be installed with the initial phase. We are looking at the water corridor, Edgeway corridor, the area from east end to west end, quite a few improvements will occur, probably next year, and we will be looking at the ____ bank in the near future. The natural features are the water courses we talked about, there four on the site and they have Harmon Stream Ditch along the east side. The view sheds against the design objective plans looked acceptable. Cultural resource inventory was completed with the Regional Subdivision and PUD and no historical or farmsteads were identified on the property. Topography is basically from south to north, a lot of change in grade in elevation with Fowler Avenue and some of the utility improvements need to be installed, and Jim Ullman from Morrison Maierle’s staff has worked out how we are going to track with that so we don’t impact the water courses, so we are okay on that. Site drainage, they are proposing a “storm tech” system, the plan is that the treatment of storm water runoff will be underground within the parking lots. The one issue we have is to preserve PUD open space areas, they are proposing an storm retention pond in the corridor, my concern is that we don’t want to get a lot of storm ponds in that edgeway corridor where we won’t be able to get credit for open space when we fall under open threshold for the open space for the PUD. I have talked to Jim about possible making this a legitimate landscape feature, but my concern is that I don’t want to get in the habit of seeing a lot of storm drainage to those water course corridors and open space corridors, so we will look at addressing that retention pond. The size is acceptable, we will have to work through that as a condition of the approval of the site plan. Placement of the building looked good. We talked about this whole treatment of the corner of Fowler and West Main and there is a lot of discussion about public plazas and we came to a consensus that we didn’t necessary have to have a public plaza on the NW corner of the bldg. but we want some public activity along the streetscape along West Main as well as at the intersection. They are proposing a seating area at the very northwest corner of the site as well as the northeast corner of the building which is workable. What is important here is that there is a lot of underground utilities, there is a lot of change in grade here, an underground storm drain system with a hump in there, and we need to make sure that in this area there is a variety of landscape species. If you recall in our second review regarding the treatments in the back of those buildings on Fowler, we talked about a lot of annual and perennial along that streetscape, I think this whole area is very important. If you look in your manual, page 25, there was an illustration where everyone was comfortable about the back of the building and a lot of the groundcover, perennials, and annuals. Now that we have introduced a storm water pond, it is important that this all work together. It was relatively flat and easy and conducive to deal with, but now we have a change in contours so we need to come up with a landscape feature that really makes that corner the entryway to the project as well as to the community. As far as pedestrian and bicycle circulation, there are three issues here – one is the treatment of the corner of Fowler Avenue and West Main, and the need for connectivity through the parking lot, as well as the treatment of the plaza along the front of the bldg. The design objective plans calls for pedestrian circulation through the parking lot, pathway through the parking lot, The other one is how we’ve dealt with these plazas in front of Albertson’s and Wal-Mart, the need for patrons that work and do their business there to be dropped off or picked up or have social activities along that facade. The thought is twofold, John you may need to help, I really think this area needs to be widened out, looking earlier at the project on Gallatin Gateway the numbers are about 32-33 feet which is a width for two _____ and drive aisles and drop-off/pick-up on one side. We have about 39, the question is – is six more additional feet adequate to get that plaza widended out or not. Parking – they are required to have 262 parking spaces, they are providing 279, about 106% required under UDO. The site lighting looks acceptable. The light fixtures that they picked up in the development manual are pretty impressive light fixtures and we talked about whether they would be throughout the parking lot – wondering if that is still the plan. Ullman says yes, it is shown on the plan. Dave – utilities and service areas – regarding the horizon line, they done a good job of screening the storage and refuse, but with the activity of pick up and drop off, a need for a hedge along the west curb, to screen that horizon line of vehicle along there – maybe some breaks in here with some nice landscape features. Need some type of continuous hedge along there maintained at six feet to protect that lower horizon line. Outdoor seating areas, the one they proposed at the NE corner is a great idea – shade or boulevard tree would work well. The Harmon Stream open space corridor along the east looks fine, the east building façade looks good – big concern is need for patrons to sit and wait and get picked up and dropped off and vendors with these types of uses. Buffers as far as mechanical and screening equipment, the only issue we had was hedge along the west side of the building. We do want to make sure irrigation wells are screened and properly placed and make sure they are adequately screened. In regards to building design - they have addressed the franchise style architecture already. Street level entrance is good, scale is good. One question I have, maybe I’m not reading elevation right – it looks like entry has covered area that actually protrudes out into the main entrance – the elevations we have don’t show. Dawn Smith remarked that the elevations are not right, Dave said it doesn’t show it being protruding. Dawn Smith – don’t show it above the roof line either. Dave – roof form was acceptable, building materials were ok, one concern is what those screening panels and louvers are going to be. ______ and joint detail – typically these little parapet walls are articulated and not just a cap, but the whole parapet wall has been articulated to meet the guidelines of the design objective plans. Signage – the rule/formula is 1.5 up to 400 square feet of signage on the building. You get credit for a second side bldg but you only get 35%. Up to 400 square feet using that 1.5 square feet per one foot of lineal frontage. Bryon asked if this 400 was per side. Dave Skelton answered – no, total. You get an additional 35% for another corner side, you have three frontages. The corridor guidelines specifically for West Main are pretty much acceptable, except for the conditions we have recommended, so if you go to the conditions on page 10 – I think the key issue of this discussion is 4 and 5, we can work through the storm water retention pond issue in open space number two – irrespective of what the condition said – we are going to get credit for open space as long as there were any above grade storm water retention ponds in this corridor. Under Condition 6, Item L that calls for the planter, seating areas, bike racks, landscape furniture along the east façade, Item L, middle of page 11. Need final color palette, final site approval. Dawn Smith – we will hear from applicant now. John Davison - if its okay, we can just go to the recommendations, Dave has covered staff report very well. Recommendations – when we came in for the formal, we had along the front of the building we had two drive-thrus, one was for a pharmacy on the south side, and the other was for a deli style drive thru – Huckleberry. We have eliminated that per your recommendation, informal, as a result we have added an additional seating area and also were able to pick up three additional parking spaces. Kept drive thru on the south for the pharmacy. Talking about recommendation – we went thru them very carefully, and recommendations one two and three as they pertain to the silt finish installation, the installation of the entire site perimeter and site boulevard trees, along with not exceeding the 25% slope, applicant has no problem with that. Item #4, off-street parking lot provides at least one east/west pathway sidewalk that extends to Harmon Stream to the main entrance of grocery store, and this comes from design objective plan. The actual provision speaks to circulation. John then showed copy of preliminary plan and trail system, the way this site lays out is that we have a trail system essentially 270 degrees around this particular site, and we also have a sidewalk along Tech Blvd. that completes this 360 degree circulation route. In addition to that the site plan also shows that the trail system dumps directly into the parking lot and into the plaza seating area where the Huckleberry area and along that sidewalk that is right now 10 feet from building to edge, through the plaza area and down across the colored cement back to Technology Blvd. and the site lends itself to a north/south approach given the way the building is configurated on the site, we think that circulation is very good, and the sidewalk from Technology Blvd is a natural extension into the lifestyle activity will come from those folks walking, if we are required to put a a sidewalk or walkway through the parking lot, the functionality and practicality would be somewhat lacking, and would also be an immediate safety issue also. Around the city I saw that the largest users in the city didn’t see have that 360 degree circulation, i.e., Wal-Mart doesn’t circulate around the building. We would subsequently request that the parking needs and convenience of this particular user reflect. Bryon - As Rosauers too, definitely prefers not to have that running thru there. John – Regarding the walkway along the east façade be widened to accommodate patrons, pick up and drop off area, social function, sidewalk display, etc. - this particular user supermarket at 60,000 square feet, if anyone has seen the inside of the store in Rosauers Missoula is classy and stylish and has a very nice presentation, this will be a first class store, With the amount of carparks and the kind of presentation these people will put together, will lend itself to a high traffic customer volume, something between 15-20,000 users per week will utilize this area. Based on studies, anything within 150 feet on a radius basis is your primary customer traffic area. That extends from the plaza area which is the main entry point and doesn’t show on plans, this extension of the canopy for the entire store does go almost out to the sidewalk and beyond. The point is this isn’t a pedestrian storage area where they would linger – people using supermarkets want to get in, get out, getting groceries and leaving. Immediately north of plaza is a wraparound seating area, and now that we have eliminated the drive-thru for the Huckleberry’s area, that that would place the proximity of that area for pedestrian social area. We will have a colored concrete extended area, all the way thru, and with that in mind we want to very much stay with original design that Rosauers has put together for this area and that elevation that you show right there. The biggest concern is the change in plans that would be difficult. What they have designed really does satisfy and makes a nice attractive drive-in point. Bryon – we took in account traffic flows in the front door – that’s why it was decided to eliminate that – we did not have any connection points at the sides, we found it to be a good idea as a tie-in point and probably should have gone that direction on the application. Out in the middle another concern we have is how to control cars not going over it, how much parking we lose, how do we plow over abutments, it creates a lot of additional barriers that we are concerned about. 106% of minimum - typically a grocery store of this size would go about 5 stalls per 1,000 feet, 5-6 stalls that we’d be looking at. To our minimum standard, we hate to see losing more parking spots – customers need them when it is 10 degrees out. John Davison – Regarding Item #6 – hard scape plan, something we will provide. Bryon – might want to talk about finish on that – I’m assuming you want to see some sort of coloring or noticeable change in surface? Dave – scored versus stamped – consistent with what’s in the manuals - not talking about putting in pavers, more scored concrete that could be pigmented and textured. Classic examples are Gallatin Gateway and Albertson’s have stamped rather than scored. Bryon – we are careful about how much of a stamp because of shopping carts, messes them up, broken wheels. Dave – Pigmented and scored then instead, but the key is something a little raised. The best example is where Ross and Michael’s are at – pigmented and scored. Ullman – we are talking about going from the asphalt grade similar to Albertson’s where it starts at the asphalt grade and comes up to the foundation elevation – a six inch rise. Bryon - So when you come out the doors you are at level. So #6 we are okay with, we could probably use some guidance on how we go about that, how to somehow raise it and identify it. John Davison – The issue is the proximity for the Huckleberry’s seating area. We would be taking business away from these guys if the seating area were in these areas, we do want to encourage folks to use seating area near Huckleberry’s. We are okay with B, C was include shade trees in grates near the outdoor seating area. Dave – My thought was that honey locusts compliments the seating area, extension of that whole focal point area for pedestrian circulation and secondary access to the project. Bryon – Our problem is that this is the max we can go out on the sidewalks and trying to get the traffic circulation around. Dave – No need to stick to magic number, just a need for a couple of boulevard type shade trees. John – Our other issue the heavily-glassed area and fireplace just inside will be a nice feature for folks walking and riding bikes by because they will be able to see in and see it and we don’t want to block this area. Bryon – our preference is that we don’t like to add additional trees onto this sidewalk. Dave – Don’t see how stem trees are problem – some people will sit at Huckleberry’s and watch traffic and people go by, boulevard trees really will compliment this corner of the building. John – Item B refers to a continuous hedge – we don’t have a great deal of objection, there is just some confusion on our part - for the screen we were going to use the larger conifers, but if we were going to install a hedge or something similar to that that would screen the view of the drivers – we think it is a very attractive back of the building, this is per the requirements of the entryway corridor and we want to comply with that, we would like to screen that with conifers as opposed to a singular hedge screening mechanism that provides a break and you can see through it, but if there are objections to service area traffic – which is almost 500 feet off of Huffine Lane. Ullman – You’ve been out there Dave – a 6 foot hedge is not going to screen. Dave – my concern is that we are trying to screen the kind of activity happening here, not the building. Delivery, drop off etc. those types of activities are always happening. Bryon – Some of those trees are tall and wide enough to create the breaks. Dave – The landscape plan is pretty minimal. I’m going to find that elevation right now, not trying to hide bldg. as much as soften. We have found that this is a good conducive transition between the street scape and those type of services areas. Intent was never to hide building. John – Regarding irrigation wells, won’t be one behind the building here to substantiate the sprinkler system. Jim says there is adequate room behind the building, so it’s a non issue. Item F regarding irrigation system. Bryon – Dave what do you say about the plaza area along the east facade. Dave – A specific landscape palette – one concerns is that we knew we weren’t going to be able to put in a lot of trees, if you look at picture on page 5, the group looked at this and said if you put in a lot of ground cover and trees, this corner will be successful. The goal was to achieve this mix of colors and groundcover along that streetscape. Dave - F, condition 7 – typically we almost always have raised planters along seating areas along plaza areas, so whatever color palette that we are talking in these exhibits be carried throughout as part of the landscape plan for this project. Bryon – Our area is kind of looking back into our floral area. John – On Item G, we are okay on. Item H is the same as C so we’ll skip. Item I. Dave – we would like just need to add two or three perennials and annuals into corner and really enhance this corner. John – in lieu of adding these flowers, maybe some low flowering shrubs that add color but don’t require a gardening army. Dave – for a change in texture, type, and seasonal color, you need perennials and annuals. You guys are two weeks ahead of DRC review board, in the final staff report that goes to the planning director I can get a list and see what we can achieve there, John – if it was a mixture that would be okay. J is same as D, move to K, landscape plan. Dave – small clusters that compliment the native species. John – Item L – we would like to resist the last requirement for walkway to be widened, we think the 10 feet along with the expansion of that colored concrete would suffice and widens that area very well. Item M 25% slope, no problem with that one. Item N we are okay with. Item 8 – On Pond One – that’s something we will achieve. Item 9 - Dave – Change Nine to Harmon Stream Creek. John – Number 9 - I don’t think achieving 25% is a problem. John – Item 10 which is pretty much covered under Item 6 – we have no objection to that and will achieve. Item 11 – we believe we accomplished that. Item 12 – will be achieved, and the development manual called for that also. Dave – we just make it clear on these elevations we show and verify that the canopy is below the parapet wall. Bryon – we have a ton of it – we will have roof plan and building plans that will show that. Dave - I going to want to see it - call it out typical. Bryon– how do you want to see that on here on the elevation. Dave – Call out on your elevations where the mechanical equipment is just dot it. Bryon– so you want to see it on the elevation, some of our main mechanical units are actually under roof, so do we have to show that? Dave – All we are trying to achieve is to show and verify that no mechanical equipment is above parapet wall, that’s all we’re trying to achieve. Bryon– we stressed to our mechanical guys that it had to be in-board enough and behind tall parapets. Dave - 13A – looking for two things - we know where the top of parapet wall is, not just a cap - some type of articulation. Bryon– some type of detail? Dave – yes. And then part B to that a lot can be done to a synthetic surface, a lot of times you can break up the pattern, good and bad examples of this in town. So more detail in pattern. Bryon– we feel pretty strong in design that we have, don’t know if this a deal-breaker, we feel simpler is better, we think you can have too much gingerbread, we want some simplified features to go with all the rock and intrusions, I caution on forcing us to put additional tooling on that. Dave – The lifestyle center, I don’t think it’s necessarily project breaker. Bryon– The light fixtures, do you just want cut sheets on wood. Dave agrees. Dave – They could be uplit or downlit as long as you don’t see the lens. Bryon- you just don’t want to see a spotlight shining out. John – Rosauers is putting together a site plan as we speak. Bryon- if we have questions do we talk to you? Dave – yes, me or Vicky Haskell. John – Item 16 has been covered with Item 12 with the additional screening. Dave – yes shouldn’t be a problem. Bryon– What do you want left or what would you need? Dave - as far as color palette – original is all we need. Bryon– do you actually need physical material like this? Dave – Ted actually had the culture stone manufacturer’s spec sheet that would probably work. Bryon– the schedule calls out exactly what it is, if somebody gets carried away you can go to website. Dave – is it a standing scene? Bryon– yes – didn’t show on the previous ones you had. Calls out manufacturer, colors on original good. Dawn Smith called for a break. Upon reconvening, Dawn asked for questions. Mel – question on Item 14 – I just want to verify, if you are going to have the same type of standards on the lighting structures. Ullman – Page 49 Dave. Dawn asked Scott if he had questions Scott – What’s the width between the face of the building and the bumper of the car. Does that parking stall include a two-foot overhang. Bryon– Those are 18-foot stalls, so yes. I think the curb is six-foot. Ullman – would be 8 feet Scott – What is the dimension between the main entry doors and the vehicular path – recognizing that is raised and everything else. What is the width of that drive aisle in front of the building. What is the dimension between the edge of the vehicular zone and the front doors. Ullman – it would be in line with that 30 foot north of parking (referring to plan). Scott Hedglin – looks like a 30 foot wide aisle here, leaving 10 foot walkway. That’s my only area of concern. Michael Pentecost – I think he answered all of my questions. Dawn Smith – My first question is when you designed this building and the site, did you design it first and then try to get it to fit into the guidelines, or did you take the guidelines into account first off? Bryon– interior or exterior? DS – I’m talking about the site and the design of the building. Bryon– Rosauers doesn’t do franchise type of buildings. We were given the guidelines, and were told you guys were tough. DS – The reason I ask that is because are you aware of the fact that you don’t meet your own guidelines? Bryon– in what aspect? Dawn - I will start with Page 34, any sidewalk fronting a building will be a minimum of 12-feet wide. And in diagram right underneath it specifically calls out the front of this building. You just said it was 8-feet with a 2-foot curb overhang, right, so that’s 10. John – It’s highlighted that it was a change during the process through the DRB. Dawn – because you were specifically saying you didn’t agree with widening it from what you were depicting at 10, when you were actually below. Bryon– we were talking about a different area, the seating areas I believe. If we need to widen it 2 feet, we could. DS – Could you address Page 31, Item I. Ullman – we are trying to do that by doing a north-south. With the traffic coming in from in here and there (refers to plan) we are trying to get them to the circulation, the shorter traffic crossing areas is the reason why we are going north to south, minimize the conflict. Dawn – So you think that you are creating a pedestrian pathway through the parking lot by the sidewalk that is abutting the building and this crosswalk right there. Bryon– I don’t think we have anything here, but we do have circulation around this building. Dawn – ok. Dawn – and what about D – specifically the last sentence – do you think you meant that? Ullman – yes Dawn - ok. What are the hours of operation. Bryon– not sure yet. DS – The reason I ask that is because there is a light in this development, that you have to turn the lighting off. DS – That corner by Huckleberry’s John you said you didn’t want to put a benches out because you didn’t want to take customers away from Huckleberry’s – so that seating area is a customer-only searing area, is it a served seating area? You didn’t want to put them at the midpoint where Dave recommended because it would take customers away from Huckleberry’s. If so, how is this space being used. Bryon– it’s repetitive, putting them out where cars are flying by, doesn’t seem very friendly. More friendly if they are in more protective areas. Dawn – is this going to be table seating, is it going to be fenced in? Bryonand Ullman – no Dawn – not going to be controlled? Bryon– no Dawn – On this elevation, the north one, I have a question on the loading dock and what would you actually see. Bryon– That’s actually not a loading dock, that’s for our compactor. And that will be sunken down about 2 or 3 feet. You are looking back into a covered area. Dawn – Other question – because this is a lifestyle center that’s how it’s been sold to us, Wal-Mart is not a lifestyle center – what is this? Where does this fit into this whole PUD. John – Convenience supermarket end of the lifestyle, the lifestyle is picked up to the east of Harmon Steam Blvd. and runs all along Technology to Chronicle. This area - knowing we were going to have a signal at Fowler, makes this an obvious and desirable commercial corner, maybe for pedestrians, but this is the convenience portion of that and hopefully bring them to the lifestyle. Dawn – I’m feeling a contradiction – this has a vehicular focus, and the lifestyle has a pedestrian focus. John – And with that activity residential element, live shop and eat, a supermarket, close to the lifestyle portion. Dawn – so it’s defined as a convenience area? Dawn – And then with the residential aspect – your grocery store is not interested in adding second level employee housing? Did you even think about it? Bryon– No Dawn – That’s all for my questions, any other questions. Michael Pentecost – My comments are - in the absence of some very long meetings and many sessions developing in your manual, if this hadn’t occurred, a 10-foot sidewalk in front, but you guys wrote 12, if Dave asks for this to be wider, then at least that minimum should be retained. Second part of that is I’m not completely convinced that the east façade should become a social place with benches seats and social functions. As I observed at Albertson’s nobody hangs out there, they go in get their groceries get in their car and leave. I’m really not supporting front façade area should become a social area. Bryonwhich item was that? Michael Pentecost – 5 Bryon– I think we would agree with you. MP – Albertson has mixed use social, we would want to hold you to the requirements. Addressing the sidewalk to the parking lot – you said you would want to do that, number two – if I lived up here, because there is going to be a residential element, I would want to walk, that’s the reason I would live there, that being the case, my sense is I wouldn’t want to walk down Tech. Blvd., if I’m going to walk across that parking lot, I would want to be protected, avoid the conflicts, but putting pedestrians through parking lot – I think we need to address that issue. I am not as much in agreement that we need to create another pedestrian plaza here. When I saw you took the drive-thru out and turned it into a pedestrian corner, then put it on a corner when I’m going to get northern light, southern light, I think it will get some use here. As far as the joint detailing and the stucco – we are on the same page on that. If I were to have created that composition, when I look at the lines, it immediately rings private, but if you had said that is smooth sanded synthetic stucco, with no joints, I agree, simple is better, take the joint details out, but it’s your design. Maybe joint detailing is needed to add interest. But I think enough activity is there already. Scott Hedglin - I agree with Michael on the joint detail, particularly on the main part of the building. But my main concern is the pedestrian zone on the east façade right in front of the building. If there was live/work units over here, people would walk down Technology Blvd. down east side of bldg. People could also use the trail and take the connection, what lacks is any sort of pedestrian-friendly detailing or planters along the east façade to the front door, and basically from the seating area to the front door as well. That could become a wider element, then you lose three parking spots, which would be a compromise rather than a pedestrian connection through the parking lot. When I read the guidelines, through the parking lot means emphasis on these pathways. Mel Howe – My comment is that a lot of work has been done on this project, the manual is really well done, and its obvious that Dave and his staff have worked very hard on this, and it has improved remarkably up to this stage and I’d like to commend everybody highly for having a wonderful project. The remaining things to be resolved I think Morrison will solve. I’m in favor of this budget. Dawn – I was taken aback by Ted’s email, I’ve been working on this project for three years, I don’t think we’re throwing things in last minute because we’ve had our design objectives guidelines and we’ve had our UDO the whole time, so it is upsetting to me for him to make a statement like that and also the statement that I don’t see how it’s possible for a single lot to have two front yards – we’ve given a list of examples throughout this community and other communities. I take it personal because I have worked on this a really long time. I was not here when you did the informal, what jumps out at me is those 11 parking spaces up against Huffine, if you are 11 spots over, I’d love to see those 11 spots go, I’m not talking about the ones up against the building, but the ones actually on Huffine or W. Main, whatever we’re calling it are a concern to me. How does this work with entryway corridor, what type of screening and stuff are they supposed to have. Dave – There is a condition that talks about a little more screening all along that parking because technically it is supposed to be an opaque wall, we rely on landscaping which is an effective tool. DS- There’s compromises also, maybe keep nine spots and put a landscape island. Bryon– I’ve put a lot of thought about landscaping out in the islands, we are working on a facility that’s unique to the area and at the end of the day we need to service the customers, and customers need to park there. Dawn – I made mention of Ted’s email is - I don’t think our parking standards have changed in the 2½ years. Bryon– you are trying holding us to a minimum or below a minimum – and you need to recognize that our minimums are different. Dawn – our codes are different. Bryon– to say to pull out 11 parking spaces, that’s not easy for us to swallow. Dave – This is a really delicate issue – and will be an issue throughout this project – we don’t want to see 125% threshold because part of the merits of the proposal is minimum parking, however, on the other hand we need to be careful on the type of use and the function of use and where it use falls in the minimum of 125%. On the other hand, the peak hours demand more parking than 8 to 5, we want to see it stay around 100%. We are trying to achieve a little bit more than minimum. The key is how we screen it. Dave – I would support Dave’s condition of strengthening the landscaping on the corner not only for that parking but also to help as a traffic calmer in that intersection. John – Dawn would you support flowering shrubs versus flowers then. Dawn – no answer. Dawn – I wanted to read you a statement out of your introduction on this project keeping in mind that you wrote this – “All elements of design will be held to the highest standards creating a quality civic space and a memorable identity for the entire project”. Bryon– I challenge you to find a better looking store across the country. You will have people coming from all over the states to see this store. Rosauers looks at the needs of the community, Huckleberry’s meets the needs of public and the store meets needs. Dawn – Continuing with my comments regarding this connection, my only concern would be bicyclists, what would be my next move. Bryon– That’s a 30-something foot drive lane. Dawn – That’s why when I think of the pedestrian walkway thru the parking lot, I also think of it from the standpoint of the bicyclist, I think you are actually going to get more bicyclists here than pedestrians. Bryon– The challenge you make if you put that down the middle is that you will create an area where people are pushing their carts, while you try to ride your bike. You won’t ride your bike there, you will park it on the side and walk into the store. Mel – Can’t ride on sidewalks in Bozeman. Dave – Trail on Huffine is very important, it is not a private trail system for this development, it’s a community trail system along Huffine, thus you need public seating area besides private seating, this is a true bike connection, Dawn - To that effect of not having the walkway area which I have used in another supermarket, there is also no other type of crossways in here, even if you wanted to park at the back corner and use this space or if you wanted to cross over into the lifestyle center, I think if you wanted to put in crosswalks internally that would help. Crossing does not necessarily have to be what we have in front of Target or Wal-Mart, just a couple of ways how to figure out how to help you multi-use this parking lot. You do have this 360 degree, which is true, but back in here you are lacking a little bit in length. Bryon– Problem is are they going anywhere to anywhere. Ullman – there will be a sidewalk to that entrance. Dawn – you guys forget you are hooked up to Garfield which is going to give you bike traffic also. Ullman – we could do one there. Dawn – you already have a couple safe zones, it how to direct the people to those safe zones. Dawn – My last comment is about the illuminated signage and the hours – I’m going to bring this up at every single application because for some reason it didn’t get into the manual and I know we had a conversation - the parking lot lights being shut off are in there, but there is no mention of illuminated signage, so I would condition this saying that illuminated signs to be treated the same way as parking lot signs, or as we’ve done in other PUDs, so that just one sign remains on. Our UDO states this, but it isn’t enforced. Dawn Smith asked for more comments, or if anyone would like to make a motion. Miuchael Pentecost – Basically we are being asked to send a recommendation of approval or denial? Dave – yes Michael Pentecost - I’ll make the motion to approve site plan and Certificate of Appropriateness plan Z06113 with the following amendments, first with the recommendations presented by staff, modifications of the following conditions, revise number 4 and 5 to read as one condition – widen and further design and develop the walkway at the east elevation of the building in lieu of a continuous walkway through the parking lot, but with additional safe crossing zones designed into the parking lot to meet the requirements of the development manual. To eliminate Requirement 7a, and to modify 7d to read that flowering shrubs designed under the guidance of the landscape architect be installed along the outside curb of the service area on the west elevation of the building and noted accordingly on the final landscape plan. 7p or 18 – add a new condition that the illuminated signs meet the same conditions as parking lot lighting as stated in the development plan. Dawn – any discussion? Bryon – I have a question on that motion – earlier there was discussion to take those recommendations in full, as approved? Because there was some recommendation on additional striking, joint detail. Michael Pentecost – you can work with him, we’ve worked with it as far as design goes. Dave – If it’s a specific condition on modifying or additions, then we are specific on the way it needs to be. Dawn – Any discussion? All those in favor – Scott Hedglin, Michael Pentecost and Mel Howe voiced aye. Dave – Before we leave this, I want to be clear on modifying 4 and 5 that we are going to widen and further develop the whole east walkway to at least 12 feet. Dawn – The north/south walkway on the east/west side. John – You combine the two recommendations 4 and 5 - that is your motion. Michael Pentecost – Design and develop the walkway to a pedestrian scale and the east elevation building in lieu of a walkway through the parking lot. Dave – So 12 feet is the magic number, right? And that we understand that its 12 feet. Are we talking any type of raised planter or when we say landscape feature – if we’re eliminating the pathway I just want it very clear that if Jolene and I work on this then we are looking for some amenities here and not just a widened sidewalk with a few features, I think Ted needs to understand. Dave – Are you going to have any vendors out front? Bryon– no, we typically don’t like vendors out front. Dave - How about plants out there or Christmas trees? That’s the way those things typically work. Dave – I wish Ted was here because I think what Ted needs to understand is that there is a higher standard set here, because it is the gateway to Bozeman and there are multiple relaxations requested, which we supported based on the merits of the proposal and any recommendations that come from this group are recommendation from everybody – and it is our purpose as staff to bring out all the points of discussion for this group and for the commission and planning director to discuss and there was a little bit of a rub on a couple items and I don’t want to start down that path that we’re going to be looking at for the next six years. I appreciate your presentation and leave it at that. Mel Howe – our last recommendation should be that Ted should relax and chill out a little. Dave – I think Ted should give the whole presentation. John – May I suggest that the letter was to the DRB and if you feel like responding to it I encourage you to. Bryon – We want to come to this community and you will appreciate what Rosauers does. 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.} ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, Ron Brey, at 582-2306 (voice) or 582-2301 (TDD).