Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-13-06 Design Review Board Minutes.doc DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2006 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Elisa Zavora Martin Knight, Assistant Planner Christopher Livingston David Skelton, Senior Planner Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Joe Batcheller Bill Rea Walter Banziger Visitors Present Thomas Bitnar Steve Roderick Casey Hart Jessica ________ Jami Morris Thomas Bitnar ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2006. Chairperson Livingston stated that on page 6, 1/3 way down the page, his statement regarding “long angles” should be changed to “sight lines” and the phrase “similar franchise proposal had better organized” should be changed to “reorganized”. MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Ms. Zavora seconded, to approve the minutes of November 8, 2006 with corrections. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM 1. Hastings Shopping Center SP/COA #Z-04047 (Skelton) 1601 West Main Street * A discussion regarding modifications to the common signage plan. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff memo noting the DRB would be considering how to proceed with the requested sign modifications and deviation(s) to the U.D.O. for signage. He stated the applicant at this time had not submitted the correct application, no review fee, nor an adequate number of the submittal, and it would ultimately be an Informal Application that might also be considered by the City Commission. The current application lacked enough information to properly present to the D.R.C. and D.R.B. He stated that because the present application does not have much information, Staff determined to make this a discussion and item for general comments by the D.R.B. and has also requested a response from the applicant to address the criteria involved with requesting a deviation along the West Main entryway corridor. He stated the applicant has completed a number of the new parking lot improvements, but have not yet proceeded with replacing the landscape along West Main Street that was improperly installed. Mr. Rea stated the site plan showed the plaza would have raised, scored walkways along the south side of the site near building B and asked if those areas were reserved for something. Planner Skelton responded they would be part of the plaza and that paving and scoring were part of the current punch-list that needs to be completes. Mr. Rea asked if wheel stops were included in the last discussion with the applicant. Planner Skelton responded they had not been included, but could be as the DRB was encouraging their use. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated the initial application was for a new 6,800 sq. ft. building fronting West Main Street and the site plan depicted the structure backing West Main Street instead. Planner Skelton responded the footprint itself actually fronted the Entryway Corridor and added that it would be pertinent to the discussion regarding the signage modifications and possible deviations. Ms. Zavora asked if a narrow area between the parking spaces had been approved so narrow. Planner Skelton responded that he did not think that it was approved as being so narrow and added that he would check against the approved site plan and also into the use of curb stops in that location. Ms. Zavora suggested Staff ask what “fronting” meant to the applicant as it was very obviously the rear of the building facing Main Street. Mr. Rea stated he was surprised to see the color rendering depicted on the front of the submittal materials and he wondered if what existed now would be the final plan or if there were alterations expected. Planner Skelton responded the applicant’s site plan application had the improvements proposed as part of the initial phase but had no firm date that it would be completed, which has raised some concern by individuals in community whether or not said improvements would be completed. Mr. Rea stated that if there were any recommendations Staff needed from the DRB, the DRB would be comfortable providing it. Mr. Batcheller asked if the proposed signage would be similar to the existing signage. Planner Skelton responded that it would generally be similar. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if what the applicant had already done had been approved by the DRB at some point. Planner Skelton responded that it had. He added that a favorable recommendation on the requested deviations would be that the applicant makes architectural improvements on the façade of the structure fronting onto Main Street. He stated that the materials and design specifications should be part of this discussion. He stated the applicant met the setback requirements for the new structure, but felt consideration should be given to removing the one-way driveway. He added that McDonald’s had done site improvements using sod and Staff had suggested eliminating the gravel and using sod on the rest of the site as well. Chairperson Livingston asked if the pedestrian access at the base of the driveway to the west of building B would be a concern as there was no traffic control in that location and the driveway was steep, was a very sharp turn, and was dangerous. He suggested the driveway did not function the way that it had been intended to function. He asked which plaza Planner Skelton was referring to. Planner Skelton responded that it was the area along the front of the original multi-tenant Hastings structure and that it had not been installed yet. Chairperson Livingston asked the original location of the pole style sign in exhibit A of the submittal materials. Planner Skelton showed the DRB the original location of the sign and where it was now proposed. Chairperson Livingston asked if Planner Skelton was stating the signage was in the vision triangle. Planner Skelton responded that without a more detailed site plan with accurate dimensions that he was not sure. He added that the critical portion of the site for any future development was at the NE area as it relates to the plume contamination issue. Chairperson Livingston stated that the existing façade treatment had all been one project and wondered if there was a separate building permit for building B; adding that the DRB had originally reviewed all the buildings at once. Planner Skelton responded that the DRB had reviewed the site as a whole, but there were no agreements in place that required completion of the proposal by a certain date. Mr. Rea stated he was please the applicant had come to the DRB in an informal discussion so the DRB could potentially make comments. He stated he did not think the applicant was in good faith with what the DRB had seen previously and suggested the applicant provide what had already been proposed and approved before any deviations were requested. He added that he would not support any deviations until the landscape improvements were completed. He stated he would go so far as to say that the applicant should not have been given occupancy permits until said improvements were completed. He stated he would in no way support any request to move the signage closer to Main Street and that in terms of building B’s signage, the solution was not just a signage, landscape, architectural, or grading issue, but all four of those items. He suggested the applicant engage a professional to help with those issues and added that he did not think signage would solve the existing issues with the site. He stated the site was very difficult for a pedestrian to walk around through. Mr. Batcheller stated he agreed with Mr. Rea’s comments. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with Mr. Rea‘s comments and he saw the integration of a good design on the south façade, making the building appear that it fronts Main Street. He added that the proposal ended the design on an outside corner so the design would chase itself around the building causing a “tail chasing the dog” situation. He suggested a good designer could continue the design around the north and west facades and integration could be accomplished. He suggested the integration of the front of the building facing the parking lot into the back of the building facing Main Street. He stated he would never support the applicant’s request without enhancement to the architecture and suggested hiring a local professional that understood the magnitude of the problems facing the site. He stated that the applicant had a drive-through, but did not appear to realize that, and suggested looking at the paved drive area as an opportunity to enhance the site. Ms. Zavora stated she agreed with previous DRB comments and the applicant needed to make good on what they were told to do before the deviation request was considered. She stated she did not have issues with the proposed locations of the low profile signs, but the proposed pole sign would be located on a significant grade change that would cause the pole to be very tall. Planner Skelton responded that the original sign had been two poles that were quite tall to allow people to see it from Main Street. Ms. Zavora suggested a low profile sign be located where the pole sign was proposed due to the grade difference. Planner Skelton responded that it would have to be a significant variance to allow that height of pole sign in the proposed location anyway. Mr. Rea added that Hastings had the largest sign in Bozeman. Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and suggested the applicant submit more than cartoons depicting what the proposed signs would really look like. He suggested reconsidering a pedestrian crossing near the Verizon building and some sort of traffic control device at the driveway on North 15th Avenue. Planner Skelton responded that the request for deviations for more signage had been driven in part by the tenants and suggested that an agreement could be reached to provide a cost effective solution that would improve the streetscape in this area. Chairperson Livingston stated the parking lot design allowed real large-scale ponding of water (just to the west of the parking) and suggested something be done to remedy the situation (such as piping that would allow the water to escape). Mr. Batcheller suggested using raised crosswalks and the speed humps on North 20th Avenue be used at the driveway location from North 15th Avenue to provide a pedestrian crossing. Mr. Rea stated that he was surprised to see parking along Main Street from North 15th Avenue and suggested making the site more pedestrian friendly to complement the south façade of the building. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. The Ridge Prel. Plan PUD #Z-06260 (Knight) 4181 Fallon Street * A Preliminary Plan Planned Unit Development Application to allow a mixed-use complex that will include the existing athletic club, 7 new buildings (with uses including a coffee shop, office, commercial, and car wash), new track, platform tennis court, and meditation park with related site improvements. Steve Roderick, Casey Hart, Jessica ________, Jami Morris, and Thomas Bitnar joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Martin Knight presented the Staff report noting the DRB had seen the proposal in the Concept PUD stage. He stated the majority of the requested relaxations were the same and two had been added; the location of the car wash had been changed (which Staff was more supportive of), one pedestrian crosswalk near the meditation park had been removed as it would be hazardous, and the coffee shop had been slightly modified. He stated the requested relaxation for waiving lot frontage coverage would be a rational relaxation that would be good for the development, the reduction of required parking was acceptable, and Staff thought the signage allowances for lots 6&7 being equal to the rest of the lots within the development was a reasonable request. Ms. Morris stated that there were two zoning designations running through the property and the mixed-use development had proposed uses that would be complimentary to the Ridge and the existing CUP that was granted for the Ridge. She stated there would be potential for smaller accessory uses (drycleaner, coffee shop, etc.) to allow patrons of the Ridge easy access to those uses. She stated the applicant had provided color renderings for the building fronting Ferguson Avenue as that had been a concern and added that the modified drive-through design allowed vehicle stacking next to the landscaped island. Mr. Roderick stated the car wash would be an ancillary use due to the site’s proximity to the campus. He stated he did not want a car wash that looked like a car wash (more a car spa) and it would have a single bay and a façade to discourage extremely dirty vehicles. Mr. Bitnar stated the architecture was intended to tie the site together with most buildings being for cars and the pedestrian areas being located in the proposed parks. He presented a color/materials palette and stated the proposed structures would be designed flexibly since the applicant did not know which tenants would be occupying the site. He stated there would be a structure in front of the Ridge that would soften the existing building. He stated there was a model in the lobby of the Ridge that the DRB could look at to get a better idea of what was being proposed. Ms. Morris added that some plans reflected a slightly different landscape plan and pointed out which one was the accurate one. Mr. Rea asked if the screening method would be the same for the trash enclosure as it was for the rest of the site. Ms. Morris directed the DRB to the enclosure detail located within the submittal binder. Mr. Banziger joined the DRB. Mr. Batcheller asked the applicant to discuss the placement of the meditation park. Ms. Morris responded the location would provide for breaking up the parking and calming traffic throughout the site. She stated the existing access would be kept and the proposed new access had to align with the street across from it. Mr. Batcheller suggested aligning the tennis courts and parks. Ms. Morris responded that had not been one of their considerations. Mr. Bitnar responded there would be more exposed territory without aligning the tennis court and parks. Mr. Batcheller stated the parking lot was massive and he was concerned about how engaging the meditation park would be to attract people. Mr. Roderick responded that pedestrian spaces were being used and that was why it had been incorporated; adding that many times people wanted a little seclusion while being outside the facility. Mr. Batcheller asked if meditation workshops were being considered. Mr. Roderick responded that yoga classes or such things could be done in that location. Chairperson Livingston added that a meditation maze could be instituted. Mr. Roderick stated that the whole area was intended to break up the parking lot and to provide for outdoor activities. Mr. Banziger asked the thought process behind the dumpster being that close to the meditation park. Mr. Roderick responded that the dumpster needed to be within a certain proximity to the structures that would be using them, and his location choice had been driven by the amount of people likely to go in and out of those buildings. Mr. Banziger stated that the campus had done a study regarding the locations of dumpsters and suggested relocating it. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the building had already been designed. Mr. Bitnar responded that they had been designed as the proposal was a PUD. Ms. Morris responded there was no guarantee that the structures would look as proposed unless Mr. Bitnar was hired to do the project, but there would be common elements required by the design guidelines for the PUD. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked for clarification regarding what the DRB was reviewing and approving at this time and whether or not the design guidelines were even needed as the structures were already planned. Ms. Morris responded that the design guidelines were necessary to tie the development together. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the design of the Ridge would be a common thread throughout the site. Mr. Bitnar responded that he had recommended to the client that the existing Ridge could be spruced up, but would create a colonnade of the same elements (his aesthetic responsibility would not cease). Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if condition “I” could be stated more clearly “bondurized instead of reflective” and suggested condition “J” read “the glass should be clear”. He asked if the intention was that the buildings not be the same all the time would the signage plan be necessary. Ms. Morris responded that the comprehensive signage plan was required to provide for the allowable square footages and common signage theme. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated the covenants concerned him a bit and sited a typo that should read dogs on “leashes” instead of “leaches” and “UBC” should be “IBC”. He added that, according to the covenants, the architectural committee would dictate the setback requirements and be able to grant variances. Ms. Morris responded that the variances granted by the architectural committee could only be variances from their covenant’s requirements. Ms. Zavora asked the intent of the meditation park as it had been proposed and whether members of the Ridge would be using it or members of the campus would be using it. Mr. Roderick responded that his vision included both customers of the Ridge and the public as any type of draw to the area was his goal. Ms. Zavora stated the plazas in between the buildings provided open space areas and the meditation park appeared as an island in the parking. She stated she could not comment on the landscaping as it was illegible on the landscape plan. Ms. Morris explained the proposed species. Ms. Zavora asked if the proposed landscaping included foundation plantings as the model did not have space to accommodate the 75% requirement. Ms. Morris responded that there would be individual landscape plans for each building with percentage requirements in the covenants. Chairperson Livingston added that the plant table had a legend that looked like ink blobs. Ms. Morris responded that the legend could be fixed or the vegetation could be labeled more clearly. Ms. Zavora asked if the existing landscape would be incorporated into the proposal. Ms. Morris responded that she did not know. Mr. Roderick responded that the first landscaper would be different from the second and he would find out. Mr. Rea asked if development guidelines took precedent over the UDO. Ms. Morris responded that the UDO was what had to be complied with and the design guidelines would only take precedent on what was specifically requested as a relaxation. Chairperson Livingston asked Mr. Roderick his exit strategy if the carwash did not turn out the way it was proposed. Mr. Roderick responded that the building adjacent could be larger, that location could be utilized as a convenience center, or it could be open space. Chairperson Livingston asked if a new Scrubby’s could be allowed at that location. Ms. Morris responded that the PUD guidelines would not allow that. Chairperson Livingston asked if it would be advantageous to the applicant to provide more access to the path from the entrances. Mr. Roderick responded that people would most likely take the shortest path. Chairperson Livingston suggested that modified path locations would be a better demographic for access to the track or tennis courts. He asked if there was a possibility of the addition of drive-through’s on the site and suggested that he found a drive-through inconsistent with the proposal. Ms. Morris responded that it would be unlikely, but possible, due to ADR Staff and possibly the DRB needing to review the proposal if a drive-through were proposed. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Commission for The Ridge Prel. Plan PUD #Z-06260. The motion died. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he was uneasy as the project seemed to be a potential “smoke and mirrors project”. He stated that as a fully designed and developed project he was uneasy with regard to the design guidelines. He stated that as a pedestrian, he would never see the pitched roofs and would be presented with a large campus of flat roofed buildings though he did not think flat roofs were inappropriate. He stated he supported the materials palette suggested as it was completely different from the Ridge, but the new architecture had been repeated eight times and would become stale. He stated he would be assaulted with a very static environment as he did not know for certain what would happen. He stated that he couldn’t support the project as there was no assurance that the design guidelines would provide for the design of all four sides of the structures; i.e. they all look alike. Chairperson Livingston added that there appeared to be a lack of diversity among at least buildings 4, 5, & 6. Mr. Rea suggested that if the ownership or tenants of the property were to change, the design of the proposal could change. He stated he always considered what the people of Bozeman would see and that view would be the Ferguson Avenue view. He stated the people of Bozeman should be taken care of first and the people of the campus should be taken care of second. He stated traffic circulation and pedestrian access did not exist on the site and he was not convinced that the meditation area on the site would be used. He stated the drive-through with the coffee shop would work from a circulation point of view due to its location at the primary entrance of the site and suggested it would be better to have a radius end instead of a square ended track. He suggested not having the same façade on each face of the structure as the north face would be under completely different solar conditions than any other facade. He stated the design guidelines without illustrations would only be 8-10 pages long and could be interpreted loosely; the guidelines would need to be more specific. Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with Mr. Rea and read a portion of the design guidelines. He added that he saw a huge parking lot with only a few pedestrian spaces and suggested looking at the west side of the site for outdoor seating areas instead of parking. He stated the proposal encouraged the use of vehicles instead of discouraged it and suggested the institution of a bus stop. He stated he looked at the buildings and realized the necessity for a back door. He stated the plaza areas proposed between buildings seemed too small and tight and would be dark or shadowed most of the time. He stated he agreed with Vice Chairperson Pentecost’s comments. Mr. Batcheller stated the meditation park seemed like a square peg in a round hole and suggested other methods of traffic calming be used. He stated the meditation area would be in the least ideal position with traffic, tennis courts, and parking surrounding it. He stated he would like to see stronger pedestrian connections throughout the site and suggested the tennis courts seemed out of place as well. He suggested the traffic and pedestrian flows could be more in harmony. Ms. Zavora stated the foundation planting landscape plan was the best she had seen come through the DRB, but suggested continuity between the new development and the existing vegetation. She suggested the parking lot islands have extensive landscaping like the existing. She stated there should be better pedestrian connections throughout the site. She suggested keeping the meditation park, but did not think anyone wanted to sit in the parking lot. She stated she agreed with Mr. Banziger’s comments regarding the open spaces between buildings. Mr. Bitnar responded the applicant would have more freedom if the lot had not been partially developed and they could start from the beginning. Ms. Zavora suggested the name of the meditation park be changed. Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with Mr. Bitnar that a person could not wholesale tear up a parking lot to accommodate connectivity, but there were logical options based on what was already there. He stated that the conversation about the meditation park would not have been the same if it were called something else and suggested that the size and the relative amount of surrounding parking caused a figure/ground relationship. He suggested the use of trees to make the space work better. He stated that he agreed that the open spaces in between buildings could be nice spaces if there were side entrances to those locations. He stated he agreed with Vice Chairperson Pentecost and Mr. Rea and that his concern was the formation of a wall without differentiation between buildings. He stated that the guidelines would have certain flexibility that proposal did not and suggested the guidelines address a certain amount of uniqueness between the buildings. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that his fear was well grounded and explained that three of the applicant’s prior proposals contained repetition, which the applicant was very good at, and suggested that the proposal would end up repeating an existing pattern using the precedent that had been set already. Ms. Morris responded that the applicant was only proposing two buildings, with the rest being conceptual, and the DRB had the opportunity to require that each site be reviewed individually upon site plan submittal. Chairperson Livingston responded that he was aware but had forgotten. Mr. Bitnar stated that the applicant knew the size, locations, and footprint of each of the structures, but other elements would change and he had no control over them. He stated the site was a challenge as it was a renovation and he had walked it 100 times. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that he only had past experience to base his opinion on and his opinion was that he did not know in which direction the project was going. He suggested the flavor of the design guidelines point in the direction the proposal was supposed to go. Chairperson Livingston argued that it was always a leap of faith. Ms. Morris suggested making DRB review upon site plan submittal a condition of approval. Mr. Rea suggested extensive language be put in place in the design guidelines. Chairperson Livingston responded that if the guidelines were too tight, it would be too restrictive. Mr. Rea defended the model as he did not want to discourage development to that level when issues could be identified. Mr. Bitnar responded that the surrounding architecture was institutional looking residential architecture. Mr. Roderick suggested the next model contain similar buildings, without them being exactly the same, to target the audience. Chairperson Livingston stated the discussion was perpetuated by too many design professionals in one room at one time. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission with Staff conditions and the addition of condition #6 that all future buildings within the PUD are presented to the DRB for review and approval upon site plan submittal. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 5. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} There was no public available for comment at this time. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board