Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-12-06 Design Review Board Minutes.docMINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2006 5:30 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chair Christopher Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Board Members Present: Christopher Livingston, Chair Mel Howe Michael Pentecost Bill Rea Staff Members Present: Susan Kozub, Associate Planner Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Michael Richards Brian Huffaker Craig Hildebrand Dick Shanahan Lowell Springer ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 14 AND JUNE 28, 2006. June 14. Christopher Livingston stated that the second to the last paragraph on Page 6 should be revised to read “Mr. Livingston said he thinks as a product the prospective we have is what is perspective views shown are acceptable, and his problem is that he finds this site plan to be horrific.” It was moved by Michael Pentecost, seconded by Bill Rea, that the minutes of the meeting of June 14, 2006, be approved as amended. The motion carried. June 28. It was moved by Bill Rea, seconded by Michael Pentecost, that the minutes of the meeting of June 28, 2006, be approved as submitted. The motion carried. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Bank of Bozeman INF #I-06016 (Kozub for Skelton) Lot 6 & 7, Bozeman Gateway Center An Informal Application for advice and direction to allow a bank, parking lot, and related site improvements to lots 6 and 7 of the Bozeman Gateway Center Planned Unit Development, zoned B-2 (Community Business) District. Present for the applicant were Michael Richards, Dick Shanahan and Lowell Springer. Associate Planner Susan Kozub presented the project for Senior Planner Dave Skelton. She noted that this application is for a 10,200-square-foot footprint bank at the southwest corner of the intersection of Harmon and Huffine Lane, which is within the West Main Street entryway corridor. At this time, staff has identified no deviations or variances, although some may become evident with the formal submittal. Associate Planner Kozub noted that staff has reviewed this informal application, and staff’s findings are contained in the memo. She highlighted some of the issues, including the need to coordinate the site improvements for this project with the Rosauer’s project. Staff has also requested an accurate site design that includes the topography of the lot and a grading plan as well as the property lines and accurate depiction of the building placement. Also, the formal application is to include all improvements to the open space corridor, and a public outdoor space is recommended. The formal entrance to the bank is to be from the parking area. Staff has reviewed the building character and found that it is not franchise architecture. Staff wants to see more articulation at the corners and offsets to break the massing and requests that more detail be provided on glazing for the main entrance. The slate roof is consistent with the lifestyle center, and staff feels the proposed building materials are generally acceptable. Signage has not been addressed in the informal submittal, and staff requests that it be included in the formal application, to ensure that it relates to the building and the overall development. Architect Lowell Springer distributed a revised rendering of the building, apologizing that they are the first printing on a new printer and don’t accurately reflect the proposed colors. He noted the exterior materials include a natural brick and traditional sandstone. He indicated the bank is to have a more serious and stately look than some of the other buildings within the lifestyle center. Architect Dick Shanahan identified the location of the refuse enclosure and noted that this latest plan shows the location of scored sidewalks. He indicated that Morrison-Maierle is working on both projects, and will ensure that a pedestrian connection is provided between the bank and Rosauer’s. He stated a larger outdoor area is being proposed, noting that it would be made available to the public as well as employees. He recognized that the site will be tight for the bank and the drive-through facility, but he feels that it is adequate for safe traffic circulation. He also noted that adequate on-site parking can be provided for the square footage of the building. He indicated that the corners can be emphasized in a more solid manner, as encouraged by staff. He then stated the roof is to be simulated slate, citing the First Interstate Bank at the intersection of West Main Street and Grand Avenue as an example of the material. Lowell Springer stated that more articulation of the corners and a signage plan will be included in the formal site plan application. He suggested that with the clock tower and entrance to the lifestyle center, there will be adequate mass on the corner of the intersection. Mel Howe stated the building looks nice, and he likes the color in the new rendering. He has no problems with the elevations and finds the composition material would be appropriate. He encouraged the applicant to consider brick of other than the standard color to provide for a more varied look within the lifestyle center, rather than the more standardized appearance of the buildings on the MSU campus. At Bill Rea’s request, the architects addressed the materials to be used. The proposal is for a synthetic sandstone, which is durable and limits the potential of erosion. They cited the 777 Building and Jacob’s Crossing as examples of the proposed materials. The facia and soffitt material are to be manufactured masonry. Bill Rea stated the applicant has done a nice job. He appreciates the slate roof and stone base, and agrees with Mel Howe on the color of the brick shown in the rendering. He also indicated the metal awnings are fine. He feels the materials selection will result in a rich looking building on a prominent site. He noted that he had initially liked the idea of bumping the corners out but, in light of discussion, it appears that might not work well for the bank. He suggested that extending the eaves and awnings might help and encouraged further exploration of that possibility, particularly on the north elevation. Lowell Springer responded it may be possible to pull out the brick cosmetically without affecting the square footage of the bank. Responding to Bill Rea, Mr. Springer stated the clock tower will be softly lit. Bill Rea noted there is a great opportunity to connect the bicycle path at both the northwest and southeast corners of the site. He also encouraged the applicant to use the same stone for the trash enclosure, citing the Morrison-Maierle site as an example. He concluded by noting this is a nice project in a very prominent spot. Michael Pentecost echoed the comments of the others. He suggested the possibility of using a lighter brick color on the corners, noting a half shade would probably be adequate. Responding to Mr. Pentecost, Lowell Springer stated that tempered glass is proposed in the entryway because KalWall tends to discolor. Responding to Christopher Livingston, Mr. Shanahan stated they propose to do copper awnings. Also, the roof forms will be done in a manner that hides the mechanical equipment. He indicated that seating is being considered in the front area, although the benches were omitted in the latest rendering. Mr. Livingston noted that the little plaza in front of First Security Bank on Main Street is used a lot, and suggested that a plaza be provided at this site. He then indicated the entry canopy does not reflect the same kind of quality that the building does, and he is concerned about the appearance of that elevation. He encouraged incorporating glass into the roof and suggested that brick detailing be considered. He stated that changing the manner in which the brick is laid in certain locations could enhance the appearance without adding a lot of cost, noting that shadow box headers or dragon’s teeth (laying brick at a 45-degree angle) are possible options. Lowell Springer responded that he has been looking at the old buildings in Butte, noting that many of them include interesting masonry details. Responding to Bill Rea, Mr. Shanahan stated they intend to retain consistency in the appearance of all sides of the structure, and plan to include awnings on the north side of the building. Christopher Livingston voiced his appreciation for the quality reflected in the three projects that have been submitted within the lifestyle center, noting it is important to ensure that future projects do not result in deterioration of the development. B. StoneRidge Square PUD Final Plan #Z-06153 (Kozub) North 19th in between Oak and Tschache A Final Planned Unit Development Application to re-review Final Elevations for Retail Buildings 4 & 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. Chair Christopher Livingston noted this is re-review of Buildings 4 and 5 in StoneRidge Square PUD. Present for the applicant were Brian Huffaker and Lowell Springer. Associate Planner Susan Kozub presented the staff report, reminding the DRB that at the last meeting, the members found the elevations of Buildings 1 through 5 acceptable except for the elevations of Buildings 4 and 5 facing North 19th Avenue. She noted that the DRC will not allow an awning to cover the path along North 19th Avenue, and that the code only allows an awning to encroach 5 feet into the setback. She forwarded staff’s preference for shifting Building 5 so that the awning does not encroach more than 5 feet rather than shrinking the awning. Lowell Springer reviewed the changes, noting that the amount of roof on the side of Building 5 for the REI and Office Depot sites has been increased. He suggested that a display area could be added adjacent to the pedestrian path, and noted a huge amount of landscaping is proposed in front of the blank building wall. He stated the display area would add more interest, not just a dark window to walk by. Lowell Springer turned his attention to Building 4, noting that the North 19th Avenue elevation has been changed to appear almost like a front, with a lot of articulation, roof overhang and columns. Also, the exit door has been covered. Responding to Michael Pentecost, Mr. Springer stated the building is to be 16-inch split faced block, in tan and red. He then identified the sign location, noting that the signage will be within code allowances. Responding to Christopher Livingston, Associate Planner Kozub stated a 20-percent deviation for signage within the planned unit development was requested and approved by the City Commission; and the signage for these buildings must comply with that approval. Responding to Mel Howe, Brian Huffaker stated the proposed awning is 16 feet wide. Associate Planner Kozub noted that, since the building is on the setback line, the awning extends 11 feet further into the setback than is allowed. She suggested that if several parking spaces were eliminated, the building could be shifted so that the awning width could be retained and still meet setback requirements. Lowell Springer stated the purpose of the awnings is to make a statement, and suggested that they could be reduced in size and the angle possibly increased without losing that statement. Brian Huffaker voiced concern with shifting the building. He stated the sewer line has already been installed, and the proposed shift could tighten the area that trucks need to access. He suggested that the awning could be reduced from 16 feet to 10 feet and the building shifted slightly without affecting the proposed appearance. Associate Planner Kozub noted that dashed lines showing the edges of the awnings would be helpful in this review. Responding to Bill Rea, Associate Planner Kozub stated that the Recreation and Parks Superintendent was very concerned about allowing the awnings to encroach over the pededstrian walkway because of shared uses on the path and maintenance. Lowell Springer stated he feels the awnings can be reduced and still maintain the massing effect, particularly if the slope is increased. It was moved by Michael Pentecost, seconded by Bill Rea, that the DRB forward to the Planning Director the recommendation that the building elevations for Buildings 4 and 5 be approved with the condition that the canopy size be adjusted to meet the code requirements in a manner that works architecturally and is satisfactory to staff. Bill Rea voiced his interest in including more specific language in the motion, stating he does not want to see the awning be less than 10 feet wide. He noted the east elevation of this building is in a prominent entryway point, and he does not want to see a small awning at a severe pitch. Responding to Bill Rea, Mr. Huffaker stated he believes that a 10-foot awning could be accommodated by shifting the building 5 feet. Christopher Livingston stated he feels there is a danger in not stipulating the size of the awning, particularly in light of the applicant’s reluctance to move the building. Lowell Springer suggested that the motion could include a minimum 8-foot awning with the vertical rise to stay the same, so that the massing looks the same from the street. He expressed a willingness to work toward providing a 10-foot-wide awning while meeting code requirements. Christopher Livingston identified a danger in not specifying the criteria for the awning, noting that the result of approving the motion on the floor could result in the applicant squeezing back the size of the awning so that it is small and useless and looks like something that has been tacked on. He expressed mixed feelings about the application, noting that at the last meeting, treatment of all sides of the structures was identified as essential and the elevations were characterized as appalling. He finds that this new submittal is simply an effort to get through the meeting and is totally useless. He noted that more stuff has been added to the building and, as a result, when one is driving up North 19th Avenue, he or she will simply see a parapet stuck on the building. He has a hard time believing that REI will look good without a significant amount of landscaping. He characterized this application as “a lot of smoke and mirrors” simply to get through the process rather than an attempt to meet the spirit of the North 19th Avenue corridor. He noted that at the last meeting, he asked for fenestration, glass and enhanced building design rather than nationally recognized franchise box structures, and he is disappointed to find that they have not been provided. If the awning is not adequately addressed in the motion, he is concerned about the possible results. Bill Rea voiced his agreement with the concerns raised by the other board members. Chair Livingston called for the vote on the motion. The motion failed on an 0-4 vote, with everyone voting No. It was moved by Bill Rea, seconded by Michael Pentecost, that the DRB forward to the Planning Director the recommendation that the building elevations for Buildings 4 and 5 be approved with the condition that the awning on the east elevation of Building 4 remain as drawn but that it may be reduced in depth so that the distance from the face of the building to the outside edge of the awning is no less than 10 feet and that the awning on the east elevation of Building 5 remain as submitted. Bill Rea noted that he would be more comfortable with requiring the awning to be a minimum of 12 feet, but he understands the applicant is “looking for inches.” Chair Livingston called for the vote on the motion. The motion carried on a 3-1 vote, with Christopher Livingston voting No. 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.} No public comment was received under this agenda item. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, it was moved by Michael Pentecost, seconded by Bill Rea, that the meeting be adjourned at 6:47 p.m. The motion carried.