Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-28-06 Design Review Board Minutes.docMINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2006 5:30 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. Members Present Applicants Present Chairperson Dawn Smith Brandon Whallon Mel Howe Brian Huffaker Christopher Livingston Craig Hildebrand Michael Pentecost Roger Somerville Bill Rea Tom Milleson Elissa Zavora David Morrison Jon Wirth Staff Bill Hanson Susan Kozub, Associate Planner James Nickelson Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Kelly Marple, Recording Secretary No visitors were present. ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 14TH, 2006. Chairperson Dawn Smith announced that there were no minutes at this time. ITEM 3. ELECTION OF NEW CHAIR. Chairperson Dawn Smith opened the floor to nominations for the election of a new Chairperson to replace herself. Mel Howe made a motion nominating Bill Rea. Christopher Livingston seconded the motion. Bill Rea respectfully declined citing the fact that he is a relatively new member of the board. Bill Rea then nominated Christopher Livingston. Michael Pentecost seconded the motion. Christopher Livingston then nominated Michael Pentecost, and Dawn Smith seconded the motion. Christopher Livingston then accepted the nomination, a vote ensued and Christopher Livingston was unanimously elected as Design Review Board Chairperson for the City of Bozeman. It was decided by general consensus that Vice Chair will remain Scott Hedglin. (Scott Hedglin was not present.) ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW B. StoneRidge Square PUD Final Plan #Z-06153 (Kozub) North 19th in between Oak and Tschache * A Final Planned Unit Development Application to review Final Elevations for Retail Buildings 1-5 in Stoneridge Square PUD located North of Oak Street, South of Tschache Lane, and West of North 19th Avenue, zoned B1 (Neighborhood Business) District and B2 (Community Business) District. Susan Kozub stated that consent items should be presented first in a DRB meeting, and it was decided by general consensus that Project Review Item B would be presented first, in opposition to the agenda. Christopher Livingston asked if anyone had any reason to take this item off the consent and asked if anybody would like to make a motion to do so. No member made a motion. It was brought up by Michael Pentecost, Mel Howe, and Christopher Livingston that the definition of fenestration and glazing were used interchangeably in the Final Plan. Susan Kozub then gave the definition of fenestration from the Architecture and Construction book as ‘the arrangement and design of windows in a building’. Then Associate Planner Kozub gave the definition of fenestration from the Dictionary of Architecture as ‘the windows in a building’. Susan Kozub stated that the issue was that the condition stated that all buildings on the outside perimeter shall provide glazing in lieu of fenestration, and that she was not sure what that actually meant. Bill Rea asked what DOP meant to which Planner Kozub replied that it was the Design Objectives Plan. Bill Rea brought up an item under 3G regarding what the intent was in regards to brushed anodized versus brushed stainless. Lowell Springer stated that they had met the conditions of the spirit of this condition. Bill Rea stated that 3C has a potential for odd misinterpretation. Susan Kozub said that the DOP did not help much in finding the term for fenestration. Michael Pentecost stated that the condition of approval says glazing, and the definition of glazing is in lieu of fenestration, he also mentioned that glazing cannot be misconstrued with anything else, but fenestration can. Lowell Springer said they were going to use opaque panels so that people could see into the stores and that the DRB had went over this before and approved the new windows. Susan Kozub then asked if it was open to discussion at this time, to which Chairperson Livingston replied yes. Chairperson Livingston said that at a certain point (since a lot of the people on board do not remember this project) the question becomes more about what is the “spirit” of 3C, and asked for verification on his point. Applicant and Planner Kozub agreed. Lowell Springer emphatically stated that this is what has been looked at already, and approved, and no significant changes had been made at all. Chairperson Livingston declared that he had not seen this project until three days ago. Bill Rea asked if it would be a good idea to focus on what the spirit of 3C is. Brian Huffaker said that instead of fenestration on 19th, they would provide glazing to give a presence of something besides just a bare wall. Mel Howe asked if this meant they were trading doors for windows. Mr. Huffaker said that they were not trading, and Planner Kozub added that if that is the case, then Building 4 does not meet the condition. Michael Pentecost agreed with Planner Kozub and stated that Building 4 does not have glazing. Chairperson Livingston remarked that in the interest of the possibility of the translation of tape to text, could it be that if glazing was taken away – fenestration would be added, and vice versa. Susan Kozub said that she thinks fenestration is a type of glazing, but glazing is not a type of fenestration. Chairperson Livingston said that he thinks that the purpose could be that the elevation needs to have some sort of fenestration, whether it be fenestration or glazing, and added that he is trying to make this as broad as possible so that they could get beyond this. Brian Krueger said he was on the Design Review Board at the time fenestration was discussed, and that the intent was to provide a double-fronted building appearance towards 19th, and that is why the condition was crafted. Associate Planner Kozub said that one option is that DRB approve this with the comment that glazing is added to 19th to satisfy condition 3C. Chairperson Livingston asked if there were any further comments or motions at this time. Elissa Zavora asked if the members will we be able to see this again after this is all done. Susan Kozub stated that the DRC has not approved the final DOP yet, and that the DRC will make sure all these conditions are met including 3C now that she knows what the intent is. Bill Rea asked everyone to take a look at Building 4 and 5 elevations, he wanted to be assured that elevations are facing the entryway corridor. Susan Kozub assured him that they were. Bill Rea pointed out that on Building 4 there is no fenestration or glazing. Mel Howe then obtained an affirmation of what 3C states from Associate Planner Kozub, who reread the condition again. Mr. Howe asked if the city commission said they want this to happen, to which Susan Kozub answered yes. Bill Rea made a motion to deny Final Plan Z-06153 because elevations at the site do not meet final approval. Susan Kozub stated that Building 4 and Building 5 do not meet the conditions. Chairperson Livingston asked for a second to Mr. Rea’s motion. Mel Howe seconded the motion. Chairperson Livingston asked for discussion at this time. Bill Rea said that the east elevation on Building 4 does not meet requirements, and minimally does not meet requirements on Building 5. He then added that in the spirit of the entryway corridor and what we are tasked to do by the city, these elevations were thought up because of what is shown out on 19th, and it looks like two backsides to him. Mel Howe said that he would like to make absolutely sure that these plans are a response to the conditions. Susan Kozub answered that yes, they were. Mel asked if the applicant said they were submitting this, to which Associate Planner Kozub answered yes. Mel Howe stated that they are only worried if there are holes in the wall, and asked what would they mean if it was different definition. Bill Rea said that he just made a motion to get it under discussion. Dawn Smith agreed with Brian Krueger’s clarification to have these buildings be treated as four-sided buildings and she added that these buildings are very challenging because of the high visibility on all sides, but thinks it is a great success on the Oak side. She thinks it is identical to what they have asked for in other PUDs, and the elevations are not as strong as they could be. Michael Pentecost said that he wants no misunderstanding in regards to the ‘shall providing glazing’ statement. Mr. Pentecost added that the city commissioner said that they should provide glazing in lieu of fenestration, and that he is very impressed at how this has come together except for this one element which hasn’t been addressed. Elissa Zavora stated that she misunderstood the conditions also, and she does not see it on either one of either Building 4 or Building 5. She also does not see 3F landscaping conditions being met. Brian Krueger then asked if he could make comments at this time. Chairperson Livingston asked to go first, commenting that retail 4 and retail 5 are like pad site buildings, just really big pad site buildings. Mr. Livingston said that they have to adhere to a double-sided condition to present something to 19th as well as primary façade where there is parking. He added that he has a hard time buying the idea that you are going to have glazing where there is storage rooms, or a kitchen, or a freezer, and that franchises come in with a set floor plan and he would be more in lieu of some fenestration instead because the windows would be black at night anyway. Mr. Livingston remarked that corner condition does not address the long walls with no lighting, and that he would like to see fenestration increased by landscaping or architectural features, and that he knows that he can’t change the condition. Brian Krueger said that the conditions for Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are supposed to come to members for final review and that he doesn’t want to lump the entire approval together, he would like to request an approval for retails 1 through 3 with 4 and 5 coming back as a proposal. Dawn Smith stated that she doesn’t think so because this is all one application and can’t be broken down into smaller applications, but that you can submit elevations for these separate buildings. Chairperson Livingston asked if anyone would like to amend the current motion. Bill Rea asked if the amendment would change the motion of denial. A vote on the motion was called by Chairperson Livingston – no one was in favor of motion. Chairperson Livingston asked if anyone would like to make a new motion. Michael Pentecost moved that they conditionally approve 3G to be changed to read that it colored anodized brushed aluminum must be used. Dawn Smith stated that they can’t do that, they can only say if it was met or not. Dawn Smith made a motion to continue for further review of Buildings 4 & 5, specifically the east elevations. Bill Rea seconded the motion. Chairperson Livingston asked for discussion at this time. Elissa Zavora asked if this would be brought back to the members showing additional elevations on Buildings 4 & 5, to which Dawn Smith answered yes. Elissa Zavora asked if this was the time to address all unmet landscaping conditions. Susan Kozub said that regarding 3F and 14 – DRC has not completed the review, but DRB needs to review elevations. Elissa Zavora asked to see the schedule of the landscaping. Susan Kozub remarked that it is not typically what DRB would see. Dawn Smith remarked that this is very confusing because it is a final and not a preliminary and because everything has already been decided with the exception of building facades. Bill Rea asked if 3F has been met, to which Elissa Zavora answered that it didn’t look like the conditions had been met. Susan Kozub stated that the developers will do all landscaping and yards and individual retailers will do their own areas. Dawn Smith stated that the DRB does a final only for a specific couple of points to be looked at. Chairperson Livingston said that they would concur that the west elevation of Buildings 1 through 3 needs some additional materials, and that perhaps they should restate the motion as a continuation of the review of Buildings 4 and 5, specifically the west elevations. A vote was held and all members present voted a yes unanimously. Lowell Springer stated that they had understood the spirit very well, and would like to have the flexibility to add or not include windows. Susan Kozub stated that she thinks that they can have all the flexibility for upgrading that they want. Mr. Springer said that the conditions came from the DRB board, and now they are expecting that the spirit does not include glass, so they will go ahead and do things even if they seem inappropriate, in keeping with the spirit. Mr. Springer then dismissed himself from the meeting at this time. A. North 19th Retail Center SP/COA #Z-06017 (Kozub) 1765 North 19th Avenue * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 7,126 sq. foot retail building and related site improvements on one of the Home Depot Pad Sites (#3) in the North 19th Entryway Corridor, zoned M1(Light Manufacturing) District. Chairperson Livingston asked if anyone have opposition to take it off the agenda. Associate Planner Kozub then gave a review of the Site Plan, and apologized that the last minutes were not yet ready, and said that staff would like the Design Review Board’s advice regarding the need of a pedestrian pathway, and the problem they see is that it does not connect to anything. Susan Kozub went on to say that the most visible elevations are the north elevations, and the south facing Shockey, and the east facing the intersection. She added that the tower feature would be complimentary to this area. Associate Planner Kozub mentioned that a standard letter of approval needs to be submitted, and that some landscaping would help to screen trash enclosure, and gave a reminder of a code provision. She also stated that a color palette needs to be seen, and then asked for questions at this time. Chairperson Livingston asked for a presentation from applicant. Tom Milleson went over some of the improvements that have been made, and stated that fairly significant changes in elevations to include trusses and townhomes on the corner were added. He added that trellises are intended to screen electric panels that will be behind them. He pointed out that there is access off of Shockey, and access to the parking lot. Mr. Milleson said that he thinks there were real attempts to incorporate everything that was talked about, and that he has elevations showing alternative materials, but that he doesn’t think they work as well as the dryvit. Chairperson Livingston asked if Mr. Milleson had some drawings with him showing the maximum amount of signage possible on the buildings, to which Mr. Milleson showed a plan showing the signs and their size. Susan Kozub interjected that staff had not seen these yet and that this was improper procedure. Chairperson Livingston said that it helps to see signage because it may or may not happen. Mr. Milleson finished by saying that they had eliminated the drive-thru based on previous concerns. Chairperson Livingston opened up to questions at this time. Dawn Smith asked Associate Planner Kozub if there were any crossways depicted, to which Kozub answered no, the only one is already existing on Shockey Lane. Bill Rea raised a question about what is going on in the south half of the building plan, where it says ‘exposed earth’. Tom Milleson said they are leaving that open for now, and it will be addressed later. Elissa Zavora asked the applicant who designed their landscape plan, to which Mr. Milleson answered a landscape designer out of Denver. Michael Pentecost made a motion to approve Z-06017 if conditions by staff are met. Mel Howe seconded the motion. Chairperson Livingston asked for discussion at this time. Dawn Smith said she would like to add a condition for scored concrete crosswalks, a southerly one and a northerly one. Susan Kozub asked where would the crosswalks end up going and Dawn Smith answered near the dumpsters and to the main area. Michael Pentecost said that the intent was to use the crosswalks for traffic calming. Tom Milleson then asked Dawn Smith if she would like to see the connection connect to an island or to a driving lane, to which Dawn answered to the edge of an island. Chairperson Livingston asked for further discussion at this time. Michael Pentecost made favorable comments stating that the building is designed to fit the site, and that he appreciates it and he knows the buildings were looked at from the perspective of how it would be viewed from 19th, and appreciates that as well. Bill Rea commented on the south elevation and that he would like to see the center section become something other than dryvit, and that he would not want to see signage on the wood trusses, but on the dryvit instead. Chairperson Livingston asked for any further comment at this time. Chairperson Livingston commented that the visual interest of the exposed trusses, stone, and glass will obscure the expanses of dryvit, and that the south elevation lost the symmetry it had at one time. He added that possibly lowering it so it doesn’t make a billboard out of the center piece and lessening the parapet height would be nice, and he finished by stating that he thinks that an admirable job has been done on this project. Dawn Smith asked if this PUD stipulates the percentage of dryvit. Susan Kozub answered that it does not. Dawn Smith then said that in regard to number 3, she would support a variation on materials, but does not support the use of signage to lessen the amount of dryvit. Michael Pentecost said that he also supports the use of less dryvit. Chairperson Livingston said that a motion is on the table that has been seconded for approval. Michael Pentecost amended the motion to say that they move to approve that they have two scored crosswalks at the discretion of the engineer. Susan Kozub verified with Mr. Pentecost that he stated two crosswalks. Dawn Smith seconded the motion. Tom Milleson said that it occurred to him me that scored crosswalks would have to be on Home Depot property. Dawn Smith asked if there was a parking agreement with them to which Mr. Milleson answered yes. Chairperson Livingston amended the motion that has been seconded, and a unanimous vote was in favor. Motion approved. Project approved. C. MMI Office Building Preliminary SP/COA #Z-06128 (Krueger) On Technology Blvd. in the Bozeman Gateway Center * A Preliminary Site Plan Application to allow the construction of an office building complex consisting of 124 offices on 6 lots of block 7 in the Bozeman Gateway Center, zoned B-2 (Community Business) District. Bill Rea informed staff and applicant that he had to leave at 7:00 p.m. Chairperson Livingston announced and described the next project. Brian Krueger said that DRB has seen this project, and DRC completed their review this morning and he would like to just highlight some issues he saw in this project. He stated that most of the comments made at the original informal review were incorporated into this site plan, and that a set of scale drawings for the elevations of this building have not been received yet. He added that at this time staff is uncomfortable issuing formal recommendations without having something in the file. Brian Krueger then went some of his through suggested conditions. In regard to scored concrete crosswalks, Mr. Krueger said that the standard city conditions would not apply, so he showed the areas where he would recommend the crosswalks be installed. He explained his reasoning for the boulevard trees and said that he would like to see a hardscape plan (which is the plaza area at the front of the building as well as seating area). Mr. Krueger said that he would like to see more bike parking and it was pointed out to him that there is inside parking. Regarding the landscaping plan he would like to see some more outdoor seating areas and is asking for seating areas at the northeast and southeast corners. He stated that he would also like to see a few more boulders incorporated into landscaping plan, and in the interior landscape islands he would like to see mostly vegetation instead of mulching or rock. Mr. Krueger stated that he would like a verification of what is shown on the plan in mulching areas and added that he would like to see coordinated types of paving, and that he recommends that the transformer be incorporated and integrated. In regards to ownership of the parking lot, he would like to see that the public is allowed to share parking at different times of day. Mr. Krueger added that in regards to pedestrian lighting, he would like to see one light every 50 feet. He finished by saying that they need to get final building elevations before moving forward. Chairperson Livingston then asked for presentation by the applicant. Bill Hanson of ThinkOne said he reviewed the comments and said they have no problem providing elevations. He added that they are working on some new software that will show a formal rendering of the building and that will also show the finished project. In regards to the enclosure of the transformer, Mr. Hanson said that he does not think the power company will like the enclosure, and if they ever had to move it, that it would damage the building. Mr. Hanson also said that he believes the textured concrete in front of the garage is problematic because of the way pedestrians will move around it, and that snow removal will also be an issue, but added that they will do it if that is what the board wants. He then showed some examples of brick and said that the lower part of building is going to be split stone and showed the colors they were looking at. Mr. Hanson added that they were looking at putting lighting under the outside canopy, in addition the signs on the building will be lit up. David Morrison with Morrison-Maierle, Inc. came forward to address Elissa Zavora’s earlier questions on landscaping and stated that they will be putting in Kentucky Bluegrass where mulch is shown on the plan, and the island with shrubs will have rock, and the islands without shrubs will have grass, and in that way they will be providing more snow removal areas in winter. David Morrison also addressed an earlier comment saying that there is around 60 boulders in this design, and that boulevard trees will be 35-45 feet apart. He added that the major picnic area will be in the courtyard area, and that they can put in additional picnic tables if required in the southwest and northwest corners. Chairperson Livingston moved to questions at this time. Elissa Zavora asked about beds and if there will be edging around the beds with shrubs, to which Mr. Morrison answered yes. Elissa Zavora also asked about the courtyard and David Morrison showed on the plan where there will be edging, he added that the plan was incorrect because it made it look like there is grass where there is actually concrete. Mr. Morrison said future maps will show sod areas and where boulders will be located, he added that a couple different kinds of rock will be incorporated and showed where there will be a dry riverbed type of area installed using Kalispell area rock. Elissa Zavora asked what kind of mulch they will be using and David said they will probably stick with rock in most areas, with a medium bark in other areas other than traffic areas where the bark will be spread around by pedestrians. Chairperson Livingston thanked the applicant. Michael Pentecost asked what the materials will be for large crown roof form, Mr. Hanson answered metal. Michael Pentecost asked for scoring of concrete, and Bill Hanson showed him on the scale model where asphalt and concrete will tentatively go and where texturing may be done on sidewalk. Chairperson Livingston asked Bill Hanson about the color palette and brick samples that he brought and where the brick was coming from. Bill Hanson answered that they probably would use the darker brick and that they are trying to use brick that is within a 500 mile range. asked for additional questions at this time. Michael Pentecost moved to approve Application Z-06128 with conditions of staff. Mel Howe seconded the motion. Chairperson Livingston asked for discussion at this time. Michael Pentecost said he would like to talk about a concrete connection across the driveway. Brian Hanson answered that when they originally looked at this, it called for circulation of pedestrians and there are some dead ends and he showed on the landscape plan where they would like to make connections through the islands. John Wirth informed Dawn Smith on the whereabouts of the entrance to the lab and indicated the area on the plan. Brian Krueger then showed the master plan showing property lines and sidewalks. Mel Home commented that he thinks that what they have presented looks like a very nice building and will be a very good addition to Bozeman. Dawn Smith commented that she is glad they will be the first building in that area and this PUD will present a lot of challenges and that the bar will be set high because Morrison-Maierle, Inc. is doing it. Chairperson Livingston agreed that it is a handsome building and the color palette presented is nice, it that it has durability, and that he thinks that along the south edge of the plan a walkway connecting the building would be a good idea. Chairperson Livingston then commented on the transformer and said that the screening needs to be coordinated and that the project will suffer if there are exposed panels. He also thinks that this project sets the bar high for future developers, which is good. Chairperson Livingston then asked if anyone would like to amend the motion based on discussion. Michael Pentecost moved to do so with the following changes on Condition number 2, that a walkway be provided and on Condition 10 the first sentence should be changed to read ‘shall be appropriately screened’. Mel Howe seconded the motion. Chairperson Livingston asked for additional discussion at this time, there was none. A vote in favor was unanimous. ITEM 5. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes) Chairperson Livingston asked for public comment at this time, none was offered. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Michael Pentecost moved to adjourn, Mel Howe seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 7:51p.m. 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).